By John-Henry Westen
OTTAWA, December 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Carleton University in Ottawa has reacted to the vote by its student union banning pro-life students from having their group recognized as an official club on campus. University Director of Communications Doug Wotherspoon told LifeSiteNews.com that in terms of space allocation CUSA’s decision would not amount to much. But pro-life students, at least currently, must fund the student union which has actively discriminated against them.
A press release on the issue by the University Administration stated, “Carleton University welcomes the diversity of opinion and has always been committed to the free expression of ideas in an open and respectful way. The deliberations that have taken place this evening by the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) are an example of the health of public discourse on Carleton’s campus.”
While the University said it respects “CUSA’s independent decision-making process,” it added that “The University, however, is not bound by the views or opinions held by the Carleton University Students’ Association.” The university states that “Student groups, both those recognized by CUSA and those that are not, have had and will continue to have the opportunity to book space on campus in accordance with Carleton’s existing policies and procedures.”
Wotherspoon told LifeSiteNews.com that CUSA “has access to a small amount of space in comparison to the space available to student clubs and groups across campus.” The CUSA motion, he said, restricted only “the space that they have authority over.”
As an example he spoke of “The galleria that we have, which is the main location for student clubs and societies to set up.” He noted, “a third of that space is managed by the Carleton University Students Association; two thirds of that space is managed by the University.”
“As a matter of course, largely over these types of issues,” he said, “the university makes space available to students both individuals and student groups whether they are recognized or not by CUSA or any other student organization.” He added that “for the most part that space is provided free of charge.”
Asked if the University had any restriction on groups which would advocate legal protection for unborn children, Wotherspoon replied, “No, it does not.” He added, however, that there may be issues over “graphic images”, but those he said, “are ruled on a case by case basis.”
In terms of being denied funding from CUSA, Wotherspoon noted that similar to space allocation, “clubs and societies across campus have a whole host of venues with respect to securing funding.” He suggested that funds for groups rejected by CUSA could be applied for from departments or programs or the “associate vice president of student academic support services who has discretionary funds.”
Wotherspoon did admit that pro-life students would still have to fund the pro-abortion student union which has actively discriminated against them, but he left open the possibility of a policy change in that regard. “At the present moment anyway, that certainly is the case. There is no portioning off of student fees based on based on [sic] a disagreement with CUSA over an issue.” So opting out of funding CUSA is “not currently available” to students, he said. He added that the university board of Governors could hear a presentation on the matter and said he could not speculate “what they might decide down the road.”
See related coverage:
Second Canadian University Student Union Bans Official Recognition of Pro-Life Clubs
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06120604.html