kevin p. siu

Cannon circa 1999

[Cross-posted from The Cannon Newspaper's January feature to reach a wider audience]

The year is 1929. It is a calm and quiet evening on the picturesque University of Toronto campus. Students could be seen relaxing at the then 10-year-old Hart House, the central community hub built for students of all faculties and colleges alike.

Suddenly, a loud thundering boom rocked the foundations of the building. Was it a bomb? Are we under attack? Is the war returning? These thoughts raced through the minds of surrounding students, caught unaware by the apparent explosion, as they searched simultaneously for cover and the source of the outburst.

Outside, a flurry of cheers and applause erupted amidst a plume of smoke near the front doors of the building. The Engineers had pulled it off. The commemorative cannons in front of Hart House, long left disused and neglected, had been loaded and fired. The campus was rocked by the sounds of a mighty boom never before heard, and the gauntlet was thrown. A new era had arrived, heralded by the mighty boom and celebratory cheers of the Engineers.

It has been 80 years since this first ‘kaboom’ were heard on campus. Since this infamous night, numerous cannons have been forged, fired, captured, liberated, and retired by our predecessors. The rich history and prestige of the Mighty Skule(TM) Cannon is unmatched by any other mascot in the country. As we celebrate eight decades of earth shattering kabooms, we look back at the Cannon’s proud history, including its darkest days of brawls and thefts.

By the early 1930s, a small portable ‘cannon’ had been constructed using metal pipes and tubing. This was brought to numerous events and fired to the amusement of all involved. Eventually, it was decided that a heftier, sturdier, and more permanent cannon was required as our official mascot. In 1936, the official Cannon Mark I was constructed by an engineering machinist, using axle stock for the barrel and cast iron for the base. Alas, the Engineers had a cannon worthy of its prestige. The Mark I would continue to be in use until 1949 – which would come to be marked as the darkest year in history for the Cannon and the Engineers.

On a cold February afternoon in 1949, a massive brawl erupted during the annual Chariot Race. The brawl included members from various faculties and colleges, and resulted in the theft of the Cannon by UofT’s Medical School students. The Meds were praised on the front page of The Varsity, and gloated about their success. When attempts at recapture failed, more desperate measures were taken. The Meds Society Vice President Bob Hetherington was kidnapped and held hostage during negotiations for the Cannon’s return. The Cannon was finally returned on February 7, but was marred by an inscription that read: “Captured by MEDS 5T2, 3 Feb 1949″.

The worst, however, was not yet over for the original beloved Cannon. In October of 1949, University College students deceived the Cannon into a fake photoshoot for The Varsity, and made off with the Cannon in a waiting car. A crafty plan was hatched out by Chief Attiliator A.J. Paul La Prairie (incidentally also the founder of the Lady Godiva Memorial Bnad). Engineers disguised as construction workers managed to remove the wooden U.C. gargoyle from the newel post by the main stairway of the U.C. building. La Prairie was summoned to meet Dean Young and President Sidney Smith, and it was agreed that the gargoyle was to be returned in exchange for the Cannon.

As the Cannon was returned by U.C., the Engineers shrewdly returned a big bag of sawdust. While U.C. was still recovering from this shock, the real gargoyle was covertly re-installed at their building.

This series of events took its toll on the Cannon Mark I. Finally, on Christmas Day, 1949, W.H. Kubbinga (a civil engineering machinist) presented the Engineering Society with the Cannon Mark II, which was larger and sturdier than its earlier counterpart. The Mark II was inaugurated at the Chariot Races the following January. In 1952, the retired Cannon Mark I was offered as a trophy for the charity Red Cross Blood Drive. The Engineers, however, lost the Blood Drive and reluctantly presented the Cannon-trophy to Forestry for winning. The trophy was later won back by the larger Engineering faculty when the rules were changed to favour total amount donated rather than percentage donated.

Seven extant versions of the Cannon

Since these early years, the Cannon has gone through numerous transformations. Seven more Cannons would be forged. Some were retired and presented to honourable members of the Faculty, and others were kept alive as a tribute to the past. Yet another was immortalized by its placement in the cornerstone of the Galbraith Building as construction on it began. Each Cannon has been a uniquely designed piece of engineering, built to incorporate our rich history, and to withstand the great explosive forces it faces each time it is showcased.

More thefts in subsequent years were attempted – some successful, and more were foiled. Nevertheless, the Cannon has never left the hands of University of Toronto students, current or former – a feat yet unmatched by other Engineering mascots – and all the more impressive given the Cannon’s illustrious and lengthy history.

The Mighty Skule(TM) Cannon has clearly been an integral part of Skule(TM) life since its first appearance, and continues to appear at dozens of events each year, including football games, Homecoming, Pride Parade, weddings, and Convocation. Today, the Cannon is closely guarded by a dedicated Chief Attiliator, whose identity remains secret to all but a handful of trusted guards, the Bnad Leedur, and the President of Skule(TM) until the unveiling at Grad Ball of each year.

The Cannon is a source of pride for all Skule(TM) students. Its history permeates through our every move, and its security dependent on our trust. Its signature Earth Shattering Kaboom has rang through the hallowed and historical halls of nearly every building at the University. Yes, it is a mascot that we can truly be proud of – but it is also an integral part of our identity.

Cannon Fun Facts:

Cannon firing in the Atrium

• At least 8 cannons have been forged since the appearance of Mark I
• Cannon Mark II is embedded in the cornerstone of Galbraith Building
• Black hardhats were introduced in mourning after the Cannon was vandalized by an ex-CA in 1976
• The Chief Attiliator wears a belt made of steel chain – which was once part of the chain protecting Waterloo’s Tool; A large circular ring is attached to the chain – this was cut from the Queen’s Grease Pole when it, too, was liberated in 2000.
• The Cannon has shattered numerous windows in Hart House, as well as set off fire alarms in many historical buildings across Toronto.

Timeline of the Cannon from 1929

I’d like to continue a thought that was cut short during the EngSci Club candidates’ debate, as election season winds down.

The Class Rep Conundrum

As I mentioned, I think that one of my biggest failings as Vice Chair of the Engineering Science Club this past year was the lack of participation from and communication with the class representatives. Indeed, after the class reps were elected (and some were not even elected until later in the term), there was little to no communication between myself and the class reps.

Granted, this year has been somewhat of a transitional year for the engineering discipline clubs, and for EngSci Club in particular. Following Engineering Society’s decision to take over class rep elections from the discipline clubs, we lost some control over what we could do and the relationship between class rep and discipline club became clouded.

Class Rep Election Issues

On the one hand, EngSoc claimed that elected class reps were accountable only to them, and their primary function was to attend EngSoc meetings and perform certain EngSoc duties such as serving on committees and informing their respective classes about EngSoc activities. The intent was to increase class rep participation in EngSoc, which has had dwindling numbers in recent years (an issue for another writeup). Unfortunately, this redefined role of class representative caused a rift to form between discipline clubs, class reps, and EngSoc.

EngSci, too, has traditionally had problems defining the role of a class rep – in particular, the first year class reps have historically had problems staying in the program at all. This year, one of our two first year reps left the program, leaving half of the class without a rep. Historically, EngSci club responded to this by electing extra class reps – four for each of first and second year.

This system had its advantages, and certainly mitigated the problem of class reps ‘dropping out’. EngSoc, however, in a bid to reduce numbers and increase the importance and prominence of the role, allowed only two reps in first year and one rep in second year. In fact, it was a concession on their part to even allow one representative per section in the first year class.

Class representatives have not had a clearly defined capacity, and having a single class rep (as was the case this year in both first and second year) meant that the onus was placed on the individuals to carve out their own role.

In the case of snap lecture-based elections, as was the case in the first year class, there was clearly no time within each candidate’s 30-second ’speech’ for their class to evaluate the candidates – especially when there were 9 candidates in the running. As I witnessed, the election became a farce, and the lecture-based voting (which lasted almost 20 minutes due to the elimination process forced upon us by the CRO) came down to a choice between ‘dude with funny name’ and ‘dude who said funny things’.

Next, in the case of the second year class rep, which was elected through an online voting system, new problems arise. Candidates were sought through the EngSoc digest – an infamous black hole of information, rather than through more direct means. They were then required to nominate themselves with a statement, through a nameless and faceless CRO. An election was then held on a given date online. In most cases, only one or two people nominated themselves, and even these only by repeated prodding. Further, by eliminating direct class participation as in lecture-based voting, the elections became even more of a joke. Turnouts in these class rep elections numbered in the high teens if a candidate was lucky, and in the 30’s if the election was contested by more than one candidate.

Now, I want to note that I am not taking anything away from these candidates – they surely had enough motivation to make a public statement to their class, and that is sometimes a difficult first step. However, there is clearly a flaw in the election process, as we have witnessed, and brings into question whether the elections give voters enough information to make an educated decision. If we are to judge the success of the system based on EngSoc participation, then the answer is a definite and emphatic no.

A reform is obviously needed. An idea was raised in the debates today – unfortunately I am unable to remember who suggested it (it was a candidate for vice chair). Nonetheless, I feel it is worth considering.

A class rep would be required to nominate themselves in advance, and prepare a statement that can be publicly posted, say, on the elections website, and then, after a certain period (with or without campaigning), elections should be held in the classroom, and perhaps with a short speech as before. This way, participation is larger and more proportionate, while motivated individuals will have more chance to become educated about their candidates. This, too, allows candidates more time to think about the position, rather than calling upon individuals in the heat of the moment right before a lecture.

Class Representatives as a Group

Another thing worth considering is the idea of a group of class reps instead of a singular person. I had always felt that the group of 4 class reps we had in my first and second year had functioned fairly well. Perhaps everyone interested in becoming a class rep should just form a class committee, and be given resources to run events. A prank event was almost done successfully in my first year, up until the point of funding and timing. I feel if the EngSci Club provided that extra bit of motivation, these events might have been executed successfully.

We know that two class reps for EngSci probably isn’t enough – but is it time to consider four again? How about six, or more? In any case, a larger group would probably give more incentive for class reps to participate in events, and not put the burden of 150 people on one person’s shoulders.

Class Rep Accountability

The accountability problem, too, needs to be addressed. It can firmly be shown that EngSoc does not have the capacity to manage class reps for all the disciplines in all the years. As EngSoc has proven this year, they cannot even get their class reps to attend one meeting a month – the last few meetings of the year did not even have quorum (thus did not have enough voting members to pass legislation). Clearly, EngSoc is not the avenue we should be exploring in relation to class reps.

For the most part, engineers do not venture much outside of their own disciplines. EngSoc participants and atrium inhabitants aside, most engineers know only a handful of people outside their own class. To this end, it is nigh impossible for EngSoc to grasp the needs and feelings of the class representatives. Class rep elections and power should in fact, be returned to the discipline clubs. This approach has many advantages over EngSoc’s misguided reform – and should be duly considered by those in charge.

First, discipline clubs form a natural ‘block’ of participation within engineering. Generally, engineers have the most ‘loyalty’ to their own discipline first, and engineering as a whole comes second. Especially for first years, who do not have a good bearing on the university’s social scene, throwing them into a hostile EngSoc meeting is probably one of the most intimidating things that can happen to you.

Discipline clubs, too, are smaller and easier to manage – upper year EngScis running the EngSci Club, for example, are much more likely to understand where first and second years are coming from than EngSoc, as many of these upper years are likely to have been class reps themselves. The smaller unit also means that more work can be done with less bureaucracy, something that turns class reps off of student politics. The smaller discipline club grouping simply allows more participation than does the larger EngSoc issue.

Discipline club executives can also help ease first and second years into larger student governments like EngSoc, and reduce the intimidation factor behind council meetings. An example of this strategy having success was this year’s Industrial Engineering Club (although much maligned by some EngSci’s, the Indies did indeed have a very well functioning discipline club system).

In fact, a class rep’s first destination for information and advice should come from their discipline club. As we have seen, engineers will listen more to someone who has been through their own situation than those who haven’t – and again, discipline clubs have this advantage over the larger EngSoc.

These things cannot happen, and class rep participation will continue to dwindle, if EngSoc continues to meddle in these smaller affairs. I propose that class rep elections and management be handed back to the discipline clubs, and done so explicitly, so that the roles of a class rep can be better defined. This year has demonstrated an incapacity on the part of EngSoc to manage these reps, and an uncertainty on the part of the reps themselves over whom they ‘belong’ or report to.

Discipline Club as a “First Stop”

This brings me to my other major point and the brunt of my re-visioning of discipline clubs – that of the discipline club’s role within the university’s social environment.

In the past year, Engineering Society has been actively pushing ways to get F!rosh more involved, through various schemes including the Skule Points initiatives and the class rep restructuring. It is yet to be seen how big of an effect this has been, but word around my particular sphere seems to be that the first years are less engaged than ever before.

So, if EngSoc is not the right avenue, as we have discussed before, we are logically left with the discipline clubs – the smallest cohesive unit of student government. As mentioned before, students are more likely to attend events within the same discipline – especially if their classmates are involved as well.

Where EngSoc has been alienating the discipline clubs for social activities, they should instead be promoting the discipline clubs. In fact, it should not be EngSoc’s job to promote events, so much as it is the job of the more ‘local’ and approachable discipline club.

Certainly, I have seen that many people in Engineering Science do not have any interaction with the Engineering Society – I only know of a few people in my year who even know all the officers’ names. They do, however, have no problems with identifying at least the EngSci Club. This identity issue alone lends credibility to the discipline clubs that EngSoc does not have. Thus far I do not think this has been addressed by EngSoc.

Critics may argue that what I propose will further divide engineers along discipline lines. On the face of it, this is certainly true. However, I am not proposing that the discipline clubs run all of the events. I am merely suggesting that the discipline clubs should play a more pivotal role in getting student interest in various activities which may be more suited to particular disciplines.

There would still be opportunity for EngSoc to step in, especially with the plethora of clubs and activities where people of all disciplines come together – but this may allow, for example, a ‘group’ of EngScis to go to an event and meet another ‘group’ of Civs. As it stands right now, individuals find out about events mostly from their classmates already – encouraging this in-class comaraderie should, in turn, boost participation by amplifying what already works best.

In fact, it may even be that bringing back interdisciplinary rivalries that have dwindled in the recent past will allow a greater sense of unity and increase participation. There are already institutions in place that can be used to a greater extent – Skule Points can be a good avenue to explore, if only we could have live statistics on discipline points, and if it were more ubiquitous. We already see that participation from the more reclusive types increase when there is some rivalry – the people getting involved in grad pranks in a bid to outdo the other disciplines is a good example of this phenomenon at work.

Thus, I feel it is necessary for the discipline clubs to be more proactive in working with their classes, to allow for larger class activities, and to regain control over the class rep system. EngSoc should take a step back and re-examine their role in promoting social activities, and perhaps give the discipline clubs a shot at this, now that EngSoc has proven itself to be more or less ineffective.