Carleton’s undergraduate student union has changed its discrimination policies, allowing it to ban other discriminatory groups while also opening the door for previously banned groups to re-certify.
Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) council voted Dec. 12 in favour of arts and social sciences councillor Vanessa Ebuka’s motion to amend their Discrimination on Campus Policy by a vote of 19-7, with 6 abstentions.
The motion said “CUSA should not arbitrarily ban but instead should work to condemn all groups that commit hate crimes.”
“I feel like finally, our student body has moved past these polarizing issues to ensure that Carleton is a place where principles of academic freedom, freedom of speech, and respectful but vigorous dialogue can be had,” said Ebuka of the approved amendments.
In the previous discrimination policy, CUSA banned specific groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Under the new policy, CUSA will condemn any group which promotes hate or discrimination in the interest of providing students a safe environment.
According to Ebuka, the motion to amend the policy was created after the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, an Alberta-based think-tank, gave Carleton University an ‘F’ for their student union’s principles and policies.
CUSA denied an anti-abortion group, Carleton Lifeline, club status and funding based on their previous discrimination policy. The previous policy barred CUSA from funding anti-abortion groups.
“Simply put, it was problematic to have a discrimination policy that was discriminatory, divisive, and didn’t uphold universal human rights to all,” Ebuka said.
Public affairs councillor Dillon Black voiced concerns that however well-intended the motion may be, future councillors will be forced to follow the letter of the discrimination policy. Black said the change to the discrimination policy would not be able to prevent Carleton Lifeline from using triggering and graphic imagery.
“There is nowhere that explicitly states these intentions, which leaves a lot of room for error, and lacks transparency and accountability,” Black said.
“I thought that makes this policy particularly disconcerting and dishonest.”
Black also called out those who abstained from the vote.
“I was disappointed that many folks also chose to abstain from the ruling,” Black said. “We can never just hold our hands up and say ‘this has nothing to do with me.’”
Public affairs councillor Sean White said he chose to abstain because he saw both sides of the argument equally.
“I understand the need for free speech and open debate at an institution of higher learning, and have been appalled at attempts to limit it in the past,” White said. “At the same time, I understand concerns about safe space and particularly triggering images and appreciate the sensitivities of those issues.”
Although there are mixed feelings among the councillors of the student union, White said he hopes for the best.
“I just hope that those who feared the implications of the motion are proven wrong – if that happens, everybody wins,” White said.
In addition to the changes in the discrimination policy, a majority of CUSA councillors voted in favour of White’s proposed motion to implement mandatory monthly office hours for all councillors.
