Student unions, choice, and freedom of speech

SOURCE:

The Agitator: A Bulletin for the Student Left

November 14, 2008 • Issue no. 20 • Author unknown

Should student unions deny funding to student groups that are "pro-life"? In doing so, are student unions limiting free speech on campus? Isn't this stifling the free flow of ideas and debate?

These questions are not new but they've been raised many times on many campuses in recent years. Recently, the Guelph Central Students' Association passed a motion to deny student union resources and funding to a student group called Life Choice. The reasoning behind the ban is because the group in question is not merely "pro-life" but anti-choice.

Unfortunately, the whole debate has been distorted and misrepresented by the mainstream and even student media. In part, this is a problem of ignorance, but in many respects it is a deliberate attempt to draw the debate away from the actual issue at hand, while opening up student unions to yet more attacks by right-wingers.

What is choice?

Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. Pro-choice means that women have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies. If their views are pro-life, then they have the undeniable right to carry the pregnancy to term. If they choose to have an abortion, they also have the right to do this. Therefore, the notion that pro-choice and pro-life are irreconcilable opposites is simply not true.

There are also people who are pro-life but anti-choice. They seek to criminalize abortion and impose their religious and/or ideological views on others via the state. Church and state have no right to dictate the choices women make with their bodies. The intimidation tactics and imagery used by such groups is also offensive and disturbing.

When it comes to student unions, the pro-choice position has to be defended. In practice, this means that student unions fund a number of religious student organizations which hold pro-life positions. Student unions also fund explicitly pro-life groups. However, if such a group is advocating the criminalization of abortion, which would entail the state determining what women do with their bodies, then student unions have the right – via their democratic processes – to deny this group funding and resources.

Free speech

But, you may ask, isn't this infringing on freedom of speech? No. Student unions are not the arbiters of free speech on campus. Student union resources, funding and policies do not determine which student groups can setup tables, hold events, poster, flyer, and do other activities. Universities provide such services to students independently of student unions. A telling example from Carleton University in the fall of 2006 was when an anti-choice student group was criticizing the student union for infringing on their right to free speech by denying them resources and space. At the same time, this group was able to book an auditorium and hold a debate with a pro-choice organization. The notion that student unions can determine who has free speech on campus is nonsense.

A more interesting question to ask is why these sorts of arguments emerge. The fact is, if anti-choice student groups tried to organize an open campaign to get the student union to take an anti-choice position, it would be overwhelmingly defeated. The vast majority of students support a woman's right to choose. Anti-choice students who want to remove hard-won rights from women rely on diverting people from the real issue by lobbing baseless criticisms onto the student union. They do so to hide the fact they want to turn the clock back on women's rights.

There is also another right that needs to be defended – the democratic right of students to determine their student union policies and the use of their collective resources. Most, if not all student unions have policies that deny funding to student groups that are racist, sexist, and homophobic. Part of fighting sexism is fighting the notion that women can't control their own bodies without approval from the state. The Guelph CSA and all other student unions who have fought this battle are right to do so and must be defended. ■

What makes a source "credible"?

"Use valid, credible sources for information"

University of Maine at Farmington, 2007

Just because you have located a book, article, website, or other resource on your topic, does not mean you should automatically use it in your paper or project. You need to choose your resources carefully to make sure you get the best and most useful ones.

How can you tell if the book, article, website, or other resource you located is a valid, credible source? It may be helpful for you to ask yourself six questions:

Who?

• Who is the author?
• What are her/his credentials?

What?

• What information is available from this resource?

Where?

• Where did the author(s) get the information?
• Are citations provided?

When?

• When was the resource produced?
  For books, check the copyright date.
  For articles, check the publication date.
  For websites, look for a "created on" or "last updated on" date.

Why?

• Why does this resource exist?
• Is the purpose to entertain, persuade, inform, etc.?
• Is the resource biased?

How?

• How comprehensive is the resource?
• Does it go into the depth you need?

SOURCE: http://plagiarism.umf.maine.edu/valid.html

Ontario Conservatives: Hypocrites, bullies

Kimberley Rogers, 1961-2001

October 2004

To the Editor:

The hypocritical name-calling used by the Tories in the legislature over the past week towards Health Minister George Smitherman is laughable. As an education advocate, I witnessed first-hand how the Harris-Flaherty government bullied those who spoke out for public education.

During a post-budget announcement at the University of Western Ontario in 2001, I questioned then-Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on behalf of university students about Conservative tax cut policies that resulted in rising tuition fees. In response, Flaherty lashed out at me with hostility. That was the typical Flaherty approach to stakeholder relations.

Later, when democratically elected school trustees in Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa refused to make cuts that hurt classrooms, and spoke out in defence of public education, then-Education Minister Elizabeth Witmer deployed “supervisors” to take over the school boards. Conservative leader Bob Runciman took the most extreme stance when he demanded that school trustees be fired.

And let us not forget Kimberly Rogers, the pregnant college student from Sudbury who turned to social assistance while on student loans in order to make ends meet. As punishment, the Harris-Flaherty government sentenced her to a lifetime ban from welfare benefits. She was also placed under house arrest and found dead in her home shortly after.

Let’s keep this in perspective: the real bullies are Flaherty and the Conservatives. I shudder to think of how much more damage they might have done to education and health care had they been re-elected last year.

Rick Telfer

First-past-the-post: An affront to democracy

October 2003

To the Editor:

The Star's Oct. 8 editorial, "NDP's late fight for party status," concludes that "arbitrarily changing the rules within days of every election in which the NDP loses more seats is an insult to voters — and to democracy."

I strongly disagree. First of all, such rules are already "arbitrary." Thus, that is not the problem. Instead, it is a political question that has serious ramifications for democracy in our province.

Granting official party status to the NDP would hardly be "an insult to voters." That is ridiculous. The NDP has a long history in Canadian politics and has played critically important roles as both government and opposition. Furthermore, the NDP captured a larger portion of the popular vote than it did in 1999.

The real insult to voters — and to democracy — is our antiquated "first-past-the-post" electoral system. The Star's suggestions for electoral reform, however, are weak at best. Dalton McGuinty has gone further by suggesting we should consider some form of proportional representation.

In other words, both The Star and McGuinty acknowledge the faults of the current system. The first step towards correcting them is to grant official party status to the NDP — a party that has and will continue to play a significant role in Canadian politics.

R. Telfer

Raining on parades

To the Editor:

Re: "Gays and lesbians must earn respect," July 18/03

In reference to London's recent gay pride activities, Florence Warren remarked that "bizarre parades will not help people to achieve their goals." Funny, that. It's worked rather well for Santa Claus.

R. Telfer

Higher university enrolment does not mean equal access

To the Editor:

Re: "University degrees worth the hassle," Mar. 12/03

The idea that "having a post-secondary education increases your earning potential" is generally true--especially when compared to not having a degree or diploma. However, a more careful reading of the recently released Statistics Canada census data reveals that Canadians under 30 actually earned less in 2000 than they did in 1980. Men under 40 have also experienced losses, while those over 50 have made substantial gains.

In other words, attaining a degree or diploma does not translate into instant prosperity. Rather, post-secondary education ensures prosperity if you happen to be male and over the age of 50. Recent graduates--who carry the highest student debt loads--are not necessarily doing so well.

It should also be noted that while university and college enrolment rates are on the rise, this does not mean that post-secondary education is accessible. Participation rates are neither a sufficient nor necessary measure of accessibility. That more people are enrolling in college and university does not indicate that people from all income backgrounds can afford post-secondary education equally.

In 2001, Statistics Canada reported that young people from the wealthiest quarter of the population were 2.5 times as likely to attend university as those from the poorest quarter. Given that tuition fees have risen by more than 126% during the 1990s, and that average student debt loads now exceed $25,000, this fact is not at all surprising.

R. Telfer

Anti-smoking: It's medical correctness, actually

December 2002

To the Editor:

I read with great interest parts of the Simcoe Reformer's "war on smoking" series. Having lived outside of Norfolk for several years now, I almost forgot just how absurd tobacco farmers sound when they claim that smoking is not, in fact, harmful. Or that those of us concerned about the hazards of cigarette smoke are simply "anti-smoking zealots" with a penchant for political correctness.

My favourite pro-smoking argument goes something like: "My mother smoked all her life and lived until she was 92." How rigorous! My second favourite argument is that all those experts, including innumerable scientists and doctors around the world, have merely distorted the facts and statistics. How objective and comprehensive!

The good news is that the "war on smoking" is working. Perhaps once the last butt is stomped out, the tobacco industry will admit the truth that it obfuscates with anecdotes and aspersions. So long as it profits from others' addiction to disease and death, the industry will dispense with the basic morality of doing no harm to others.

In the meantime, I'll trust the expert word of those not reaping magnificent profits from the sale of cigarettes. That is, I'll take the advice of the 10 million doctors in 117 countries - represented by organizations like the World Medical Association - that say smoking kills. Period.

R. Telfer

Support workers and demand better from government

To the Editor:

Re: "Government urged to fire all strikers," Apr. 3/02

Like Steve Scott in his Apr. 3 letter, I too have a complaint about the OPSEU strike. Specifically, I am outraged that the provincial government has failed to provide a fair settlement to our fellow workers, friends, and family members in the public sector.

The government strategy to dismantle the social safety net includes a concerted attack on the standard of living and rights of workers - whether in industry, manufacturing, or the public service. This attack is very much in line with the privatization of electricity, healthcare, education, and so on.

There is no group of people more strategically poised to save our public services from the privatization agenda of the provincial government and its corporate backers than the mass of workers employed in the public sector. At the same time, any gains made by the striking workers will set higher standards for all workers fighting for better living standards across the country.

I agree that under-employed - and unemployed - people need meaningful, well-paying jobs. But instead of firing the strikers to achieve this goal, we should instead fire the Ontario Conservatives and start questioning why it is that some people in our society, namely CEOs of the largest corporations, have daily incomes greater than the yearly income of Canada's average worker.

Rick Telfer

On being "anti" globalization

Anti-FTAA protests, Quebec City, 2001

To the Editor:

Re: Editorial cartoon on globalisation, July 31/01

Last week's editorial cartoon depicting an anti-globalisation protester is indicative of one of two standpoints. Either the artist behind the cartoon supports the neo-liberal and right-wing agenda of government and corporate leaders, or the artist is completely ignorant of the issues facing our increasingly "globalised" world.

The fact that things are produced and consumed on a world-wide scale is not the target of the anti-globalisation movement. Rather, anti-globalisation protesters recgonise that world leaders are making far-reaching decisions with little or no mandate from those they purport to represent. Instead, they meet in secret with an agenda to bolster the already magnificent profits of trans-national corporations.

That agenda includes eroding a country's tax base. That agenda means dismantling social programs like education, health care, and pensions. That agenda means eliminating legal protections for the environment, workers, and basic human rights. Indeed, the effects of this agenda are already being felt by many of us.

What anti-globalisation protesters want is an open, public debate about the direction of our lives and our nations. Anti-globalisation protesters do not fear "globalisation" per se. They fear the world-wide inequality and exploitation that our so-called leaders are expanding and enforcing with an iron fist.

R. Telfer

Scapegoating struggle: Why bolster bigotry, Mr. Coren?

Labeling: To what end?

To the Editor of The London Free Press:

Re: "Straight-talking struggle," Nov. 6/10

[http://www.lfpress.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/11/05/15992596.html]

Michael Coren is well known as an evangelical Christian. I feel confident, therefore, that he knows the Bible well and is familiar with the scapegoat story.[1] [Note: Apparently I missed the news that Michael Coren switched back to Roman Catholicism in recent years. Still Christian, but no longer evangelical.]

Thus, one might think that Coren would name scapegoating when he sees it. Instead, he lauds the jingoism and xenophobia spewed by right-wing mouthpieces like Mark Steyn.[2]

I also cherish free speech. But let's shift the debate from Steyn's speech to its effects. In uncertain times, Steyn's rants direct attention away from the economic elites who got us into the present mess. Instead, minorities and social critics take the beating--including Muslims, feminists, leftists, gays, academics, and others.

Fascism has many characteristics including, to name just a few, hyper-patriotism, labeling enemies/scapegoats, and contempt towards intellectuals and human rights.[3] Clearly we are not now living under fascism, and surely we want to avoid a drift towards that kind of viciousness and authoritarianism.

But consider Steyn's rhetoric and ask yourself: In what political direction are he and Coren trying to lead us?[4] It's a troubling drift and, in a society where free speech is not equally accessible to all[5], why is it surprising that victims of scapegoating may sometimes feel compelled to resort to censorious tactics?

Rick Telfer

(Sent November 6, 2010)

FURTHER/RELATED READING & EXAMPLES/EVIDENCE:

1. http://goo.gl/qRPaT
2. http://goo.gl/rEgdu
3. http://goo.gl/oE3I7
4. http://goo.gl/Du1H
5. http://goo.gl/aLtvV