// archives


This tag is associated with 27 posts

How The Leveller came to be (and almost didn’t continue): An interview with the founders of this rabble-rousing rag

By Caroline Rodriguez-Charette

As The Leveller wraps up its tenth volume, we wanted to look back at how this student-led newspaper all began. With its first issue published on Feb. 9, 2009, The Leveller was founded as the passion project of three grad students: David Tough and Daniel Tubb from Carleton University and Doug Nesbitt from Trent. The Leveller caught up with two of these founders, Tough and Tubb, to hear how it all happened.

Where did the idea for starting The Leveller come from?  

David Tough: The initial idea was to have a similar version of Arthur, Trent University’s student newspaper, at Carleton. Arthur was very left-wing and had long essay-type articles, like in magazines. It was unabashedly pro-labour and was critical of the university administration. The Charlatan, Carleton’s newspaper, was very dull at the time and adhered to a very conventional mainstream model. Knowing I was at Carleton and that I’d previously been the editor of Arthur, Doug Nesbitt asked me in 2008 what I thought it would be like if there was an equivalent paper at Carleton.

Daniel Tubb: The idea was to do something like the Arthur which was critical and on the left but also had culture and campus and community news, which was missing [at Carleton]. But it was also very explicitly to be a vehicle to get political messages out and cover things that the other papers weren’t covering.

What motivated you and the other founders to start the newspaper?

David Tough: A few months later, in early 2009, the Carleton teaching assistant (TA) union was in bargaining and voted against a strike, which really weakened the union’s bargaining position. The university abolished tuition indexing and the union had to accept it and go back to work with a weaker contract. Doug and I revisited the idea again, and I contacted Daniel Tubb, who I knew of from Trent. The idea just took off from there.

Daniel Tubb: By losing [tuition indexing], every graduate student at Carleton since then has paid way more tuition than they would have if we hadn’t lost it. Why did we lose it? The union was doing a really bad job of communicating the message and the media landscape at Carleton at the time was The Charlatan, which was somewhat right-wing.

Both David and I had come from Trent, and David was editor for the Arthur student newspaper there when I was an undergrad. Somehow I got roped into being on the board for a year. We had fond memories of Trent, and at some point, David invited me and Doug Nesbitt to Mike’s Place with the idea of starting a newspaper like the Arthur. I can remember being in Mike’s Place – it was a lot darker and dingier back then, and I don’t know why I said yes.

You’re avoiding writing your master’s thesis by making a newspaper, I suppose. It filled a void – it was something I wished I had when I started at Carleton. When I started at Carleton I never knew what was going on, and so the listings at the back were things that I would have wanted to know about, to get involved in.

How did the first issue come together?

Daniel Tubb: So we started it with an ambitious timeline. We put [the first issue] together with various stories, ads that may not have actually been paid for. The first editorial said, “If you have read the paper in any semblance of the expected order, you will have noticed by now that we at The Leveller don’t put a lot of stock in being objective. We like to editorialize at least a little all of the time.”

It was an editorial vision that David really had, and the layout was mine. I sorted out a lot of the back end stuff. A lot of the format was modelled after the green of The Onion and some of the layout was The International Socialist at the time.

It was fun, and then we did it again, and then we did it again, and then we did it again, and by the end of that, we were kind of exhausted that summer, it almost didn’t continue.

What challenges did The Leveller face in its first year as a newspaper?

David Tough: Early on, The Leveller was pretty casual, and a lot of people came together at the start who didn’t really have that similar politics. We all thought that The Leveller should be left, should be critical of the university admin, pro-labour, etc, but a lot of what turned out to be core issues for various people were just kind of hanging in the air. Within a short time, they exploded, and the first group (me included) kind of drifted away.

Daniel Tubb: The first issues were all done over the Internet. People would send stories and there would be a lot of fighting over email. Then the summer happened and there was a big flare up over, I think it was the title for one of the articles, and it just spiraled out of control.

How did The Leveller rebound after that summer?

David Tough: Erin Seatter, copy editor and proofreader of The Leveller in its first year, really took charge of bringing it back. It was a lot more organized and editing was not only done in a more regimented way but done together. When people disagreed, they argued it through. It was a much better system, though not for the faint of heart. Basically it would be a full weekend of arguing over how to approach given issues, often making changes line by line, phrase by phrase. It made it a lot harder to fight because everyone was in one room.

The early Leveller may have had more personality, like Arthur, but the true Leveller is the one that developed after the first year, which was a more consistent, official voice of the publication. I tend to think of the first year as a kind of pilot project, and think of the real start of The Leveller as the way it worked in September 2009.

What would you say was the most rewarding aspect of putting The Leveller together?

Daniel Tubb: My first year at Carleton, I remember being very lonely and then The Leveller created a community for me in Ottawa that I didn’t have before. It was a lot of fun and I got to meet a lot of cool people. I also learned how to write quickly. In academia everything takes years to write but at The Leveller, we would put everything together in two-three weeks. I loved co-writing – where you write something and someone revises it, then someone else edits it and then it would get its final edit. I wish my real life was that way because it’s much faster and more fun.

Did you think The Leveller would still be around 10 volumes later? Do you still follow it and what are your thoughts on what you see?

David Tough: I think once we got the grad levy in 2010, I was pretty confident The Leveller would survive. I wasn’t confident that it would come back after the dissolution of the initial group in early 2009, but since then, I haven’t doubted it. I don’t read it all the time, but I like what I read and was very happy to see the development of the Sans Culottes [The Levellers french section].

Daniel Tubb: I hoped it would, but I didn’t think it would, especially not after that summer, the summer after we finished, I thought it was done. I think when we got the GSA Levy, I figured it would be around for a while because it creates stability and funding to make the thing exist, which that first year didn’t have. That was mostly to get some funding to take the load off all of things that aren’t that much fun to do, like accounts, delivery, making sure everything’s paid for, all those kinds of things.

I sometimes go read The Leveller to find out what’s happening in Ottawa and Carleton, so I love the fact that it has continued. I always thought of it as a place where you can learn a lot, and then it would be another generation’s time to take over.

This article first appeared in the Leveller Vol. 10, No. 6 (Mar/Apr 2018).

Carleton’s Fem Film Fest: Celebrating diversity in cinema

By Meral Jamal

From Oct. 16-20, the Womyn’s Centre at Carleton University in collaboration with the Carleton University Students’ Association hosted its first Fem Film Fest.

The daily lineup of movies was based on categories such as queer and trans women in film, women of colour in film, women in action and women in comedy. The movies consisted of classics and fan favourites such as Mean Girls and Clueless, but also more recent ones such as Hidden Figures, He Named Me Malala and Margarita with a Straw. Harar Hall, the organizer for the event, said that “Movies are a really great way of connecting people with ideas that they may have never encountered before in a very entertaining way. Beyond that, I think that it’s important to celebrate the talents of women and feminists as they break down barriers in representation and ideology.”

The four-day event also had a “Fem(me) Talk” in its schedule. It began with an introduction by  two Carleton students – who identified themselves as Ellie and Danielle – and took place in the cozy purple office of the Womyn’s Centre. The talk took a New York Times article called “Look Who’s Still Talking the Most in Movies: White Men” as its starting point, which was based on  research recently conducted by the University of Southern California. Analyzing the scripts of 1,000 popular films, this research found that 4900 out of 7000 characters were men, while only a little more than 2,000 characters were women. In addition, men were involved in over twice as many on-screen dialogues as women – 37,000 to 15,000.

Other topics highlighted  in the Fem(me) Talk included the representation of people of colour in films and the lack of representation of people with disabilities. Why are Middle Eastern characters consistently typecast as terrorists or taxi drivers? Why are Asian characters always shopkeepers? Why are Black women depicted as “angry”? Why are Black men portrayed as thugs or thieves? And why are people with disabilities regularly victimized? Most importantly, why are the roles of different people with different stories still being written by cisgender, white men? And why is much of the film industry still owned by them?

The talk ended on a positive and hopeful note. Attendees were asked to share what their hopes are for the future of women in film. Reflecting the diverse audience, responses ranged from wanting to see more women cast as villains, more butch lesbians, and more women shown to be inherently strong and not just survivors and victims, to seeing people with disabilities as leading characters and not simply victims or confined to living in hospitals.

The Fem Film Fest made an explicit effort to make sure their own offerings were diverse and accessible. “We partnered with both the Gender and Sexuality Resource Centre, and the Race, Ethnicity and Cultural Hall to show the movies from queer and trans women and women of colour,” Hall explained. “But we’ve also made sure to use venues that are accessible and consistently have folks that are trained in peer support on hand.”

Hall believes that this kind of diversity represents a bright future for film. “In many ways representation is improving; more female directors are being recognized for their brilliance, there are more women being highlighted in comedy. Genres that have historically been terrible to women like horror have started putting [different] spins on the ideas of female fragility.”

Even the revelation of multiple sexual assault allegations against famed Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein represent a certain kind of progress – while also showing how far we have to go. Hall explained, “the reaction to Weinstein is a lot better than the reaction to Woody Allen, but it took years of film companies and others in the industry covering for Weinstein before his crimes came to light. We can’t allow perpetrators to continue to have influence and receive accolades at the expense of survivors’ health, safety and well-being. The movies that these men make should not be more important than the lives they have harmed.”

The four days of fem film ended on a positive note, popcorn, and two hours of Mean Girls.

This article first appeared in the Leveller Vol. 10, No. 2 (Oct/Nov 2017).

Students Demand Runte Address Carleton’s Rape Culture

By Espoir Manirambona

A Carleton University Senate meeting on March 18 was unfolding in the usual dry administrative manner.

A disproportionately white and male crowd of suited professors and students listened as the university dictated its plan to celebrate Carleton’s 75th anniversary.

One could almost hear the snores until a handful of students marched into the room. A beautifully diverse group of young leaders came with determination and banners reading “Prevention Mechanisms,” “Community Oversight” and “Universal Policy” demanding with their silent presence that Carleton’s administration address rape culture on campus.

After being ignored for several minutes, a senator asked President Roseann Runte to do the right thing and acknowledge the presence of the students, which she did reluctantly.

One of the students, Lauren Montgomery, doctoral student and Women’s Caucus Chair of CUPE 4600, eloquently spoke about how student activists have been asking the university administration for a survivor-centred policy that recognizes rape culture.

Runte responded by saying the university is developing a policy regarding sexual assault but admitted that she is not up to date on how the process is unfolding.

In recent months, the Carleton administration has organized a series of meetings and consultations around the process of creating a sexual assault policy that Carleton is now mandated to implement following a new law passed by the provincial government.

Montgomery and other stakeholders involved in the consultation process feel that they have been disrespected during the meetings and that their feedback has thus far not been incorporated, although they are hopeful that this will change.

“They are refusing to implement what we are asking them for,” Montgomery told the Leveller. “They do not acknowledge rape culture.”

Students have been demanding a universal policy that applies to workers as well as students, a strategy that focuses on prevention and independent community oversight.

“The university purports to be doing their best and they’re not,” said Montgomery. “[Runte] doesn’t know who the stakeholders are or what their demands are.”

Carleton is known as a rape campus, according to Montgomery, and the administration’s response to high profile incidents over the years has been “appalling.”

“If administrators really cared, they would put this [policy] at the top of their list,” she said.

According to Carleton University Equity Services, 15-25 per cent of female students will experience some form of sexual violence throughout their academic career. Incidences of sexual assaults on campuses across North America have been more frequently reported in recent years.

The following consultation meeting is scheduled for March 23. Once the policy has been developed, it will be up to the board of governors to adopt it, the same body that has refused to hold open meetings and is largely unaccountable to students.

Montgomery says students need to keep pushing for the demands of the Carleton community to be implemented by the university administration.

“While it was a silent protest of respect for the processes of the Senate, the silence also represents something many survivors face in their difficulties of navigating the systems around sexual assault.”

This article first appeared in the Leveller Vol. 8 No. 6 (March 2016).

Current Issue