Pro-life group funds row
Rejection of financial request leads to call for ruling court to intervene
PRO-LIFE students at a leading university have written to the institution asking officials to intervene in a row over their rights to funding.
The letter – from the Catholic Society to Strathclyde University’s ruling court – comes after moves to overturn a ban on pro-life groups receiving financial support from the University of Strathclyde Students’ Association (USSA) was rejected.
The students’ association regularly funds clubs and societies at the university covering a wide range of cultural and sporting activities.
The Student Parliament voted down a request to change the policy on the pro-life group despite arguments that restricting funding stifled freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs.
The row comes at a time when there are growing concerns British universities have become too politically correct and are stifling free speech by banning anything that causes offence. Last year, the University of East Anglia banned students from wearing free sombreros they were given by a local restaurant because the student union decided non-Mexicans wearing the wide-brimmed hats could be interpreted as racist.
Oxford University cancelled a debate on abortion after female students complained they would be offended by the presence of men on the panel.
Cardiff University students tried to ban the feminist icon Germaine Greer because she once wrote that a man who was castrated would not behave like a woman, which was construed as offensive to transsexuals.
Laura Seggie, a student from Strathclyde University and a member of the pro-life group, called for the court to review the decision, which she said breached human rights and rights of freedom of speech.
She said: “We have recently been attempting to secure standing as a recognised club as part of USSA. Unfortunately, we have been denied this basic human right following a decision by the Student Parliament. We have been formally informed this decision has been taken because we are representatives of a pro-life movement and that pro-life groups are denied rights of recognition and prevented from enjoying the privileges of a club or society.
“Given the firmly negative response to our application and the forceful manner in which the existing policy was explained to us, effectively banning pro-life groups, any change in the current position seems unlikely.”
Ms Seggie said the society and the new Strathclyde Life Action group felt the court should examine the situation on their behalf “as we see this as our only way to secure a potential remedy” prior to considering the possibility of legal action.
However, Gary Paterson, president of USSA, said the students could seek a university-wide referendum to overturn the ban on funding of campaigning by pro-life groups.
He said: “I strongly believe in the right of a woman to choose, and I also strongly believe in democracy; the Students’ Union is a democratic members organisation, all of our rules and policy are set by students and can be changed by students; judging by support for this policy and students attitudes on women’s rights I wouldn’t expect such a change would occur.”
‘‘ Given the forceful manner in which the policy was explained to us any change in position seems unlikely
AUNIVERSITY is the last place that should restrict free thinking, which is why the attempts by some students to ban speech or behaviour they consider offensive has been so extraordinary. Universities should be doing everything they can to defend the right to challenge orthodoxies and vigorously explore complicated issues, and that inevitably runs the risk that some people or groups might be offended.
So have a group of pro-life students at Strathclyde University become the latest victims of the attempts to shut down “offensive” views? They certainly believe so and have asked the ruling court to intervene after their attempts to access funding were rejected.
The students of the Catholic Society had wanted funding from the University Students’ Association as a recognised club. But the student parliament rejected the move and the pro-life group says it has been denied a basic right.
The student association sees things differently and says the Catholic Society has the right to take the issue to a referendum on whether to change the official support for a women’s right to choose. That may be so, but the point is that one view on abortion is effectively restricted because it does not accord with the officially accepted position.
A similar situation arose at Glasgow University last year when a group of academics said Daniel Taub, the Israeli ambassador to the UK, should be banned from the campus. But this newspaper defended his visit on the grounds students should have access to a range of views, and the same applies to the Catholic Society.
Academics, students, or protesters have the right to object to views on abortion or any other issue, but they should not expect to be able to shut down those opinions, directly through a ban or indirectly through withholding funding. The authorities at Strathclyde need to look again at what they are doing to defend free speech and open debate.