Canadian Universities a Breeding Ground for Ignorance

Freedom is not an ideal, it is not even a protection, if it means nothing more than freedom to stagnate, to live without dreams, to have no greater aim than a second car and another television set.

Adlai Stevenson (1900–1965), “Putting First Things First,” (New York, Jan. 1960).

I heard a disturbing story on the radio last week.

As people prepared to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies, and given it is the Year of the Veteran, I was distressed to hear a story about students at York University in Toronto forcing recruiters from the Canadian Armed Forces off the campus. As part of the story it was mentioned the University of Guelph was planning on banning recruiting from their campus as well.

There were actually two incidents at York. On September 22nd, a recruiting officer from the Canadian Armed Forces was at York University for an information session at the Student Service Building. There, she was confronted by a group of students and ended up having to be escorted to her car after students protested her presence. According to the Excaliber, York University’s newspaper, the students “expressed” their concerns and “asked” the Canadian military not to return.

The following week, recruiters from the Canadian Armed Forces returned to set up a recruiting booth at the university career fair, that they had been invited to attend. They were met by student protesters chanting "Army out of Afghanistan, Army out of York". According to a member of a student group known as the Grass Roots Anti-Imperialist Network (GRAIN), “the demonstration happened because of the Canadian military's participation in illegal campaigns of aggression and our opposition of the use of York's campus as a space to strengthen those campaigns."

According to the University of Western Ontario Gazette, the president of the York Federation of Students, Omari Mason, said “the students were not happy with military policies, and students should have a right to debate or challenge anything on campus, as long as it’s peaceful.” Given that the military recruiters had to have York security present in order to dismantle their display and exit the venue, it would hardly seem like peaceful debate. Even his statement in the Excaliber is far from peaceful. In it he is quoted as saying "We gave them a warning a week before about their presence on the campus but they came back for the career fair," says Mason, adding, "They shouldn't be on our campus."

Gave them a warning not to return? Hardly a recipe for peaceful debate. In fact, to my mind, when one side uses force to quell dissenting opinions, it is often called a dictatorship.

That is what is so disturbing. Lately there seems to be a growing trend at universities to force their views on other students. These institutions, whose very existence is supposed to be dedicated to the expansion and open discussion of varying ideas, are becoming institutions dedicated to ignorance and close-mindedness.

The justification for their actions is Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan and Haiti.

In calling them illegal campaigns of aggression one has to ask what they think should have been done? Afghanistan, for instance, was a proven training ground for terrorists from around the world and one of the most oppressive countries known at the time. The Taliban imposed its will on the people of Afghanistan with harsh consequences for any that opposed them. They brutalized, raped and killed with impunity, keeping the masses in poverty while enjoying power and privilege. Although a small country, they were a definite threat to the world by their very support in the training and export of terrorism.

Should we bury our heads in the sand? Should we allow others to suffer while we live in peace? The fact that we were willing to pay the price, and continue to pay it, in the name of justice and freedom for an oppressed people is hardly an act of aggression. Our troops in Afghanistan do not risk life and limb forcing their will on the people of that country but rather do so to stop others from doing it.

It has also been said that we forced out a democratically elected government in Haiti. We could argue this back and forth but, from what I have seen, Canada did not force out the government in Haiti but did rapidly step up to the plate to help when that country was in a state of disarray and the common people were suffering for it. Again, risking death, the soldiers of the Canadian Armed Forces rushed in to help the vulnerable people of that country.

Even the statement that because it was a democratically elected government we should do nothing shows a lack of knowledge. We have only to give a moment’s thought to modern history to see the vulnerabilities in this argument. Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, was “elected”, as is the government of Sudan and most recently the president of Iran, the same person who is calling for the total destruction of Israel. Perhaps the most famous democratically elected leader in the last century is Adolf Hitler and we all know what happened there.

As one comment on a blog points out, “Pacifism is evil because it can only thrive under conditions whereby someone else is willing to do your fighting and dying for you.”

Unfortunately, the students at various universities seem to be pushing their own agendas forward while pushing common sense and knowledge to the background. The policy that is currently espoused by the Central Student Association (CSA) at the University of Guelph highlights this issue.

The policy states they oppose “military recruitment initiatives at the University of Guelph. This includes tabling in the UC, ads in washrooms, or any visible presence on campus by any military organization(s) that is/are known to have participated in, or supported in any way, activities that are clearly illegal.”

Clearly illegal to who?

This attitude imposes their own view on others and, as the incident at York demonstrates, if they do not get their own way then you can count on some form of disruption will force it to happen. Banning recruitment by the Military also limits the opportunities for those students who would like to take advantage of the Canadian Armed Force policies of paying for a recruit’s education.

They apparently have also assigned themselves the role of judge and jury in deciding what is an illegal activity. Neither the actions in Afghanistan nor Haiti have been deemed illegal except by countries whose activities are also questionable. The very act of them deciding what is illegal and then compelling others to submit to their decision is, in itself, worrying. What is their opinion of countries that behave that way? Do they support this kind of thinking on a national level? I doubt it, so why do they expect others to accept it when they behave in this manner.

The CSA policy also states they will actively oppose “military research and research on behalf of military organizations at Canadian universities. Research that benefits military-related organizations involved in, or closely tied to, war crimes will be opposed by and campaigned around by the CSA.’

Grave accusations given that they are partially targeted at the Canadian Armed Forces. We, as a country, have long gone out of our way to prosecute those who have committed war crimes, to the point of placing our troops and public servants in harm’s way to retrieve the evidence to do this. Are they now saying our involvement in the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo were war crimes since these were both NATO actions and not immediately sanctioned by the United Nations? This view is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain’s, the British Prime Minister in 1938, policy of appeasement that was partially responsible for Hitler’s bloodless conquest of Austria and Czechoslovakia.

We also have to ask what they plan on opposing? With the statement that they will oppose any “research that benefits military-related organizations” and given that this apparently applies to the Canadian military would they then oppose the development of things like water treatment equipment, emergency medical procedures and engineering equipment used in rapid deployments? All of these are things developed for use by the Canadian Armed Forces and then, by extension, used by Canada’s Disaster Assistance Response Team. These are very shortsighted statements and show a lack of knowledge of the uses of military equipment in modern society, especially in Canada.

Given the ambiguousness of the idea of “research that benefits military-related organizations”, this can be applied to a huge amount of equipment and appliances in everyday use. Research in Motion’s Blackberry is considered so integral to the everyday running of the United State military that the US government is getting involved in RIM’s patent dispute. They are afraid a court injunction banning the sale of the Blackberry in the US would actually be a threat to national security. It is not hard to find other examples of “research that benefits military-related organizations.” Global Positioning Systems? Military. digital and analog telecommunications? Ditto. Computers, aircraft design, lasers, portable medical diagnostic equipment, etc, etc. The list is enormous.

If a university were to ban all research that involves a military application then they may just as well close down. But, according to Hannah Draper, the communications commissioner for CSA, “we don’t think a university campus is the right venue for the military to be recruiting. We have a code of conduct around suppliers and which employers and recruiters we want on campus.”

So here are the future leaders of industry and, most worrying of all our country, showing a lack vision and an unwillingness to understand the complex issues at hand. In a country dedicated to peace and equality, the lip service paid to this idea while imposing their views on to others, is a disturbing trend. We, as a nation, cannot afford to negate what others have to say, even if it differs from our own beliefs, for in ignorance lies destruction.

Universities are supposed to be institutes of higher learning. Unfortunately, it would seem, ignorance knows no bounds.