While it is one thing to silence opinions, it is another thing to force opinions onto others. While I am not completely unsympathetic to the causes Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) seeks to pursue, the existence of a mandatory levy on all students completely undermines their legitimacy as an advocacy group regardless of how sizeable that levy is. By default, OPIRG-Carleton receives a $6.84 levy from every full-time undergraduate student. The ability for OPIRG-Carleton to promote its ideas and opinions largely depends on this levy. While it is not a hefty fee for the individual student, the funds from the levy are used to subsidize opinions which students may not necessarily share. This imposed association with OPIRG-Carleton and its campaigns equates to induced speech. This is to say that by default OPIRG-Carleton is entitled to preemptively define our opinions and positions unless we actively decide to disassociate ourselves from the organization. In an equal society, no individual or group of individuals would have the elite power to claim a right to define the opinions of others without ever consulting said individual. The sword can cut both ways. I am sure OPIRG would be on my side if there was an organization that levied students to fund its protests on abortion or gay marriage simply because they ran contrary to their moral philosophy or religion. It is for that same reason I believe it is in OPIRG-Carleton’s interest to abandon the mandatory levy.
To make the case clear, the levy is mandatory. It is not an optional payment included in our fees. An ex post facto opt-out does not negate this fact. The levy takes advantage of uninformed students who just come to Carleton to study and get on with their lives. Most students are not even aware there exists an organization known as OPIRG-Carleton. This delegitimizes OPIRG-Carleton as a voice for the 99 per cent. The fact that OPIRG-Carleton resists replacing the opt-out with an opt-in demonstrates that they recognize their failure in convincing others to support their cause. It demonstrates that OPIRG-Carleton concedes that they are incompetent at engaging and persuading the community with reasoned discussions and academic discourse but must instead manipulate and take advantage of the uninformed in order to continue functioning. Such practices are incompatible with the social justice OPIRG-Carleton claims to promote.
The inaction of students to opt out does not imply support for OPIRG-Carleton. For OPIRG-Carleton to become a legitimate voice on behalf of students they should not be afraid of the opt-in option. The organization will be far more influential and their protests more meaningful if they were structured on the principles of voluntary association and reasoned debate. Their support would not be artificial but a genuine reflection that their causes are winning over the hearts and minds of students. The only way to change the world is to change the minds of people, even if it must be done one individual at a time.
— Ian CoKehyeng,
president, Carleton Students for Liberty
