Need Your Opinion on What is Going on at my University

[Vile Atheist]

Here's the deal. At my university - Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario - there has been a Life Support group there for a number of years (I'm not sure the exact length of time, but important point is, they were already an establish student group). Life Support is a religious pro-life group. Nothing wrong with that as we have other Christian groups and even a Muslim group.

Recently, however, Lakehead decided to yank away their club status. This wasn't reported on in the local paper. There was a short article in our university newspaper, The Argus, but it's hard to find. So here's the link if you can't find it:

Life Support issue on hold | The Argus

They are supposedly not letting this group exist because of an alleged incident where a student accuses a Life Support member of insulting him.

Here, I want to point how: How do you verify an insult, beyond witnesses? You can't. Lakehead has not produced these supposed witnesses who can verify the insult or even comment on the severity of the insult. It's an insult...boo-hoo...get on with your life, but it does depend on what exactly was said and how it was said. But I'd probably be willing to let it go unless it was something extreme.

Vice President Finance Josh Kolic was very vocal of his disapproval of Life Support. During the meeting, he shared his opinion that, “the folder on Life Support is atrocious and disturbing.”

Kolic based his argument on a similar case involving the Supreme Court in British Columbia. The court deemed a pro-life group to violate human rights. He also argued that other universities in the Canadian Federation of Students also prohibit such clubs, as per their pro-choice stance.



He stated that universities such as Ryerson, UBC, as well as others, have commended him for his stance. He also said a student at the Day of Action hugged him for what he called a “victory for human rights.”

This all seems like a very horrible excuse to get rid of this group on the part of Lakehead and though I disagree with Life Support and their club mandate, what I do support is free speech. They have broken no laws, they have not discriminated against anyone, they were in line with the rules of the university (because they were a club for years prior). If it was only one incident with the student, shouldn't Life Support's club status be dependent on verifying whether or not the student's complaint was true?



Even then, shouldn't that only be grounds for reprimanding the Life Support member in question if this was true?






I really don't like Kolic, either. Sure I agree with his stance on abortion, but he's calling this a "victory for human rights"? Since when is human rights stomping on someone else's free speech? I may disagree with all this club has to say, but one thing is for certain, I'll defend their right to say it.


Furthermore, aren't universities supposed to be bastions of free speech and free thinking? Since when is dissolving this group Gestapo-style in line with that? Shouldn't we be allowing them to speak and defeating their ideas in the academic arena? Why are we silencing groups merely because we disagree with them?



This would be understandable if it was a fundamental religious group or a neo-Nazi group or anything like that. But it isn't. I know some members of this group as I have counter-protested against them with my friends and have had dialogue with them. They aren't extremists. They're nice people who believe this is the way we should be protecting life. I heavily disagree, but they are certainly entitled to their own opinions.



I'm thinking of writing a letter to the editor for our paper, The Chronicle Journal. But that's pending on the details I get from a member in the group.

 

[MSizer]

I agree with you that I probably wouldn't support the opinions of the group either, and secretly would prefer they didn't exist, but to ban them on those grounds is bold, 'cuz I think they have grounds to fight it and make the university look bad in the process.

 

[Mr Cheese]

"Its freedom of speech, until you say too much"

 

[MSizer]

I've been to Thunder Bay twice. It's like many small cities but farther away. On the return flight to toronto (on my second visit) a door on the lower side of the plane flew open and all of our luggage dropped into wisconsin farmers' fields. We had to turn around and we were greeted at the runway with firetrucks and ambulances.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It would depend on the rules of the university.
Many universities would not allow unsupported Groups to meet on their property.
However they could do little about open groups that met elsewhere.

all such controversial groups such as this, are watched carefully, because of problems in the past and the violence that has attended them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I finished that article more confused than I was when I started. It seems like there's a whole mish-mash of issues.

On the one hand, it seems like your VP is saying that "pro-life" clubs are objectionable just based on the fact that they're "pro-life", which makes me wonder how the insult allegation matters.

On the other, he talks about the club's "folder"... which IMO implies a number of past incidents, not just this most recent one.

This bit just makes no sense to me, though:

Board member Mary Chang asked to see the club’s constitution, but Kolic refused, stating that the documents were too sensitive to be released to the board.

I don't think anyone who's not at the university is in a position to say what's really going on. The article makes it seem like Kolic is out on some sort of personal vendetta, but without knowing more about your campus newspaper, I couldn't be sure that the writer of the article or the editor of the paper isn't out on a personal vendetta against Kolic - remembering back to my own campus newspaper, I wouldn't automatically exclude the possibility.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'm getting some of my information from someone I know who is in the Life Support group itself. She's not a student at Lakehead, but will be next year. They allow non-students to be in the groups. She's heavily involved with that.

The University's arguments against this group are pretty weak beer and it seems like they simply took the first excuse to revoke their club status. Like I said, I'm with them 100% when they say they object to this group. I'm against them 100% when they take their club status away.

It's not like these groups are involved in abortion clinic bombings. The most they do is protest on the side of the street once a year on the same day at the same time. They are involved in other charitable projects like raising money and food and clothing for young teen mothers.

That's why I'm sort of ticked at this incident. They've done absolutely nothing (from what I've heard and I've heard information from Lakehead sources as well) to warrant this. Even if the allegation the unnamed student made is true, why isn't that Life Support member getting reprimanded, but the whole group?

I know how clubs at Lakehead work because I was thinking of setting up an atheist freethinkers club but decided not to because of time constraints and the sheer amount of paperwork to do. One of the things you have to submit to have your club recognized is a constitution. You submit the constitution that covers succession, how finances are handled, how disputes are handled, your mandate, etc. It needs to be approved by the Vice-Provost of Student Affairs. Once it is approved, and all the paperwork is filled out, you're in.

How is that "sensitive"? If the Vice-Provost approved it, it should be kosher. So I don't know what this Kolic guy is smoking unless he's trying to hide something.

 

[Smoke]

All this talk about insults just seems childish to me, but I think this is sufficient reason to deny the club recognition:

Board member Mary Chang asked to see the club’s constitution, but Kolic refused, stating that the documents were too sensitive to be released to the board.

 

[Smoke]

"Its freedom of speech, until you say too much"

Neville Brothers frubals.

 

[Vile Atheist]

All this talk about insults just seems childish to me, but I think this is sufficient reason to deny the club recognition:

I agree about the insults...but Kolic isn't in the club. Kolic is opposed to the club. It's not the club refusing to hand over the constitution. In fact, the constitution SHOULD be made public and that's the source of confusion here. We don't know why Kolic is refusing to release it nor why the club is refusing to make their constitution public.

But I'm going to talk to that girl I know in this group and try to find out more information.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Sounds to me like your university wishes to mold itself in the ways of the current president. Pretty soon the religious groups will go away too.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Well he's retiring very soon anyways. They're currently in the process of finding someone to replace him.

 

[Apex]

It sounds like we need some more information. But this statement is just plain disturbing.

Kolic based his argument on a similar case involving the Supreme Court in British Columbia. The court deemed a pro-life group to violate human rights. He also argued that other universities in the Canadian Federation of Students also prohibit such clubs, as per their pro-choice stance.

He stated that universities such as Ryerson, UBC, as well as others, have commended him for his stance. He also said a student at the Day of Action hugged him for what he called a “victory for human rights.”

This thread also made me think of a documentary called Indoctrinate U. One part of it shows what happened when a student was threatened by a member of a "Issues" group. And I don't mean just lightly threatened, but "He should be shot in the face!" threatened. You can view it here, skip forward to 06:40 in the video to watch this exact section. The reaction from the university was quite different then your universities response to one student threatening another...

 

[Vile Atheist]

I was actually going to PM you, Apex, because I know you had a similar thread. The university isn't really handling this very well. It just sounds like they took the first chance they could get to get rid of this group.

I talked to the girl I know in this group and she said the university didn't even look into if the allegation against the group was true. They took the student at his word. Granted, that is from the group, so the information may be biased. But I intended to try and find out more.

 

[Apex]

I was actually going to PM you, Apex, because I know you had a similar thread. The university isn't really handling this very well. It just sounds like they took the first chance they could get to get rid of this group.

I talked to the girl I know in this group and she said the university didn't even look into if the allegation against the group was true. They took the student at his word. Granted, that is from the group, so the information may be biased. But I intended to try and find out more.

They may wish to contact FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). From what I know FIRE operates only in the US but they may be willing to help or at least provide some legal advice (click the "Submit A Case" link at the top of the page). If this had happened in the US, and what you have heard is correct, they would be all over this.

 

[Alceste]

They may wish to contact FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). From what I know FIRE operates only in the US but they may be willing to help or at least provide some legal advice (click the "Submit A Case" link at the top of the page). If this had happened in the US, and what you have heard is correct, they would be all over this.

Actually, in Canada we have our very own laws, lawyers and human rights foundations. Shocking, I know.

 

[Apex]

Actually, in Canada we have our very own laws, lawyers and human rights foundations. Shocking, I know.

Yeah I know. But I do not know of the Canadian equivalent of FIRE, or if there even is one. But I am betting FIRE would be able to point them in the right direction.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah I know. But I do not know of the Canadian equivalent of FIRE, or if there even is one. But I am betting FIRE would be able to point them in the right direction.

Google is pretty good too.

The Shotgun: Canadian Civil Liberties Association defending the freedom of expression of campus pro-life clubs

 

[Alceste]

I was actually going to PM you, Apex, because I know you had a similar thread. The university isn't really handling this very well. It just sounds like they took the first chance they could get to get rid of this group.

I talked to the girl I know in this group and she said the university didn't even look into if the allegation against the group was true. They took the student at his word. Granted, that is from the group, so the information may be biased. But I intended to try and find out more.

Hiya - I was just doing some digging and it seems this is a bigger issue than just Lakehead, and has to do with more than a single complaint. The Canadian Federation of Students resolved in 2008 to support student unions wishing to ban pro-life groups, and since then a number of them have had their status yanked.

It does seem to be the case of suppressing an unpopular opinion, and I don't support it. I agree with the CCLU letter I linked to.

On the other hand, I also agree with this statement by the Student Union president:

"I met with members of Life Support in early October and suggested to them that if they truly wanted to represent “pro-life” values that they would perhaps be better served advocating for increased programs for expectant mothers on this campus or increased funding for child care services on campus rather than simply maintain an anti-choice stance by denigrating those who believe in a woman’s right to choose."

Are they simply "denigrating those who believe in a woman's right to choose"? Look at the "Genocide Awareness Project", which seems to be what they are into (from comments in the articles like "comparing abortion to genocide in Rwanda"), and decide for yourself.

 

[Vile Atheist]

"I met with members of Life Support in early October and suggested to them that if they truly wanted to represent “pro-life” values that they would perhaps be better served advocating for increased programs for expectant mothers on this campus or increased funding for child care services on campus rather than simply maintain an anti-choice stance by denigrating those who believe in a woman’s right to choose."

They do that already (to my knowledge). I believe they have a program called Project Mommy where get donations of clothing for teen mothers. And that's city-wide, not just on campus.

I know they do protests once a year. I've counter-protested them lol. But they weren't rowdy or extreme. They were actually pretty nice about it.

As for what else they do, I think that's irrelevant. Did Lakehead not say the reason this group is disbanded is because of the allegation that a student was insulted by one of its members? If that's the allegation and that's what they are going off of - such weak beer - don't you think they'd throw that in too? I mean the university has a damn weak case as it is. Don't you think if they did anything extreme, the Student Union would know about it and bring that up along with the allegations to strengthen their case?

I want to take some sort of action, but I don't really know enough to do much. I don't know how seriously the University actually looked into the allegations, if at all. I only have the word of a member of the group which is naturally going to be biased. I don't know if the University has other complaints against them, though the insult allegation seems to be the brunt of it, according to the article in The Argus. I don't know what other actions Life Support may have done to provoke this response, if any - though it's largely irrelevant as Lakehead isn't bringing anything else up, it's good to know.


If what the Student Union president says is true and they are focusing on denigrating the pro-choice side, then Lakehead has a case. But they haven't made it. I'm pretty sure it's against Lakehead policy to have a club dedicated to being against a particular group of people. I'd have to look in the club rules to find the exact wording of that again.

All Lakehead has said is that a student was insulted by a member of this group, from what I've heard so far. If they really were doing anything else, Lakehead would be all over it to throw in as another excuse to justify their actions. Because they aren't bringing anything else up, either they are ignorant as to the goings-on of this group (unlikely), or they actually have nothing else (likely).