Carleton cuts Lifeline

Carleton University’s student government has upheld a previous decision to cut funding and remove the official club status of an anti-abortion group called Carleton Lifeline.

The Carleton University Student Association’s (CUSA) original decision followed a “Genocide Awareness Program” campaign mounted by Carleton Lifeline in October. The campaign featured graphic imagery of bloodied fetuses and compared abortion to the Holocaust.

The group had been offered indoor space to display their posters, but moved the material outside, where they were subsequently arrested by campus police and charged with trespassing.

The Student Association told Lifeline that their constitution opposes the association’s anti-discrimination policy, which states that “any campaign, distribution, solicitation, lobbying effort, display, event etc. that seeks to limit or remove a woman’s right to choose her option in the case of pregnancy will not be supported.” Carleton Lifeline claims that the decision opposes CUSA’s own mandate to function free from prejudice based on political affiliations or beliefs.

The Journal feels that CUSA’s decision was reasonable and appropriate.

It’s true that removing Carleton Lifeline’s club status as a consequence of its inappropriate conduct sets a dangerous precedent. While the move is a response to the club’s methods, not its message, dissembling the two is impossible. CUSA needs to carefully examine the clubs that it endorses for fear of contradicting its own mandate to function as a body free from prejudice.

However, where the student association has a responsibility to facilitate political discourse from all perspectives, Carleton Lifeline has a responsibility to do so in a reasonable manner, in line with the association and the University’s expectations.

It’s easy to see why the University felt it necessary to cut the club’s funding. The graphic display could easily have a serious and disturbing effect on passers-by—especially those unprepared to see it in a public space.

Instead of encouraging discourse and reflection, the display simply marries two overwhelmingly sensitive topics in the least sensitive way possible, trying to elicit disgust and guilt in viewers. The University made a reasonable and appropriate decision, considering they provided Lifeline a forum to display their materials—a concession which the club ignored by moving into a public space.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content