Campus thought police

Ottawa Citizen - Canada ^ | Thursday, November 30, 2006 | Editorial

[GMMAC]

Campus thought police

The Ottawa Citizen: Editorial
Published: Thursday, November 30, 2006

The Carleton University Students Association is funded by a fee collected from every undergraduate.

It seems logical to assume then that the support this body dispenses should be available to all students, or at least that is what one hopes.

People from many different backgrounds come to study at a large university such as Carleton. They bring with them different views. This is good for the university and for the wider world these young people will someday engage.

The essence of university life should be to encourage a vigorous and fair debate of ideas and issues, especially controversial ones, no matter that some views might conflict with what is considered "acceptable" to a certain group that is in a position of authority.

This openness, so central to academic development, is imperilled by the current debate over whether CUSA should attempt to shut out one side of the abortion debate.

CUSA has proposed a motion, to be voted on next week, that would see a ban on support for any activity on campus that has "anti-choice purposes." The association would also assert that the association would "respect and affirm a woman's right to choose."

If CUSA really believed in the values inherent in the word "choice," the organization might have more respect for those students on the Carleton campus who, rightly or wrongly, oppose abortion on demand.

But CUSA's actions are not really about choice. They have become an example of the kind of tyranny of thought that George Orwell, who has long been a favourite of university students, would rail against. Orwell, most famous for his books Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, was passionately opposed to such intolerance.

"Collectivism," he said, "is not inherently democratic but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of."

Modern campuses have become havens of this kind of groupthink. On issues such as the Palestinian question, on abortion and on same-sex marriage, some of today's most contentious debates, it is the belief of some people that certain ideas are not to be heard on campus.

If you oppose the politically correct view, you are vilified. Ask Rabbi Reuven Bulka, who, after being chosen to address Carleton's graduating class of 2005, came under heavy student fire because of his tradtional views about sexuality and same-sex marriage.

Margaret Somerville, one of Canada's leading thinkers on ethical matters, landed in hot water over her views on same-sex marriage when she was asked to speak at Ryerson University this past June.

If you favour the Palestinian cause, you attempt to drown out those who speak on behalf of Israel. Concordia University in Montreal was turned upside down over a visit by former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, cancelled because of politically correct protests.

Universities need to be open places. CUSA is headed in exactly the wrong direction.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

[Clive]

-

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

The saddest part of all this is that the final "decision" on this subject (as well as most similar campus votes) will most likely be made by - at the most - ten percent of the student body. The "activist" population of the campus gets all the press, makes all the noise and decisions while the vast majority of the students just grind away at the curriculum until they get all the punches in the ticket to graduate. Then they get to try and get a job with all of the wonderful qualifications they've paid for, along with the socialist BS like this gem that the campus establishment wishes on them.

Almost makes me embarrassed to have even a marginal part in the process.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[SeenTheLight]

And let's not forget that there are plenty of conservative Canadians who are opposed to this nonsense:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/weblog/5916/