The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) released their annual rankings of universities and student associations a little while ago. The JCCF has a mission “to defend the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through litigation and education.”
Every year, they grade university administrations and student associations on a scale of A to F based on their policies and their actions regarding constitutional freedoms.
Traditionally, both Carleton University and Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) scored poorly, but this year was different. While Carleton’s administration tied for the worst grades in Canada with an F, CUSA was tied for the highest grade in Canada with a B—receiving a C for policies, and an A for practices.
While everyone and their grandmother seems to be flipping out over Carleton getting an F, I’m more worried about CUSA getting a B.
The JCCF is a right-wing, politically motivated organization. The political leanings of an organization like this are fairly clear when you look at the people who support and endorse it, and the endorsement page of their website is mostly a collection of right-wing ideologues.
It features such names as Ezra Levant, host of a show on Sun News Network known for his altercations with human rights commissions.
Also featured is Michael Taube, former speechwriter for Prime Minister Harper, Andrea Mrozek, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada—a subsidiary group of Focus on the Family Canada—a group that is anti-abortion and against same-sex marriage.
You’ll also find Troy Lanigan, president and CEO of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and some higher-ups of a few right-wing think-tanks.
You also have to look critically at why the JCCF gave CUSA such a high grade.
In the report they released along with the actual grade index, JCCF mostly makes reference to changes CUSA made in its Discrimination on Campus Policy. The motion to change the policy was inspired by JCCF’s 2012 index, where CUSA was given an F. The 2012 index was explicitly referenced in the motion.
The motion itself changed the entire spirit of the policy, taking what was originally a policy designed to give protection to marginalized or disadvantaged groups, and turning it into a free speech manifesto.
They also cut out CUSA’s pro-choice designation as an organization, leaving students exposed to groups who want to spread bogus medical information about abortion and flaunt around photoshopped pictures of “fetuses” that have been known to cause anxiety attacks and, on occasion, fainting.
So basically, the improved letter grade was the JCCF’s reward to CUSA for following along with their ideology like a well trained, right-wing, free speech puppy.
It’s really ironic, because the same people who support the JCCF also espouse this idea of neutrality, of not taking a stance and letting everyone say whatever they want.
But here’s the deal—neutrality is not the absence of a stance, it is the surrender to the stance of the loudest, the strongest, and the richest. This “neutrality” is essentially taking the voices of the most downtrodden members of our society, and kicking them to the curb.
This idea is really well enunciated in an omission in JCCF’s vision statement. See, JCCF says they advocate for a world where “each and every Canadian is treated equally by governments and by the courts.”
It’s missing something, though. This organization doesn’t say anything about Canadians being treated equally by each other, and that’s a pretty glaring hole, because Canadians don’t treat each other equally all the time.
We have things called racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism—I could go on forever.
The JCCF doesn’t care about how we treat each other unless we work for the government. I don’t know about you, but I’d be proud to get a failing grade from an organization like that, and I’d be wary of an organization that does much better.
