Universities Canada\u2019s (UC) Board of Directors proposed a new by-law for adoption at its October 2016 Membership Meeting that discriminates against faith-based universities. Framed in benevolent language, UC\u2019s proposal is anything but. UC is the club that all universities want to be a part of. It claims to be \u201cthe voice of Canadian universities, at home and abroad.\u201d It provides university presidents \u201ca unified voice for higher education, research and innovation.\u201d When UC speaks, government listens.<\/p>\n
Consider how benign the by-law reads:<\/p>\n
\u201cWith respect to all institutional policies and practices, the institution affirms its commitment to equal treatment of all persons without discrimination, and without limitation, on the basis of race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical or mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, family status, sex, and sexual orientation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Upon first reading you have to say, \u201cWhat\u2019s wrong with that? It seems straight forward. Being against discriminatory universities is a good thing.\u201d Indeed, that is the disingenuous part of the UC proposal \u2013 it sounds harmless, it looks harmless. But it is far from harmless. It is a sophisticated mechanism to ensure that the small number of faith-based Canadian universities are not able to remain true to their moral convictions if they are UC members.<\/p>\n
Notice that the by-law refers to \u201creligious beliefs\u201d \u2013 human rights legislation uses the term \u201creligion\u201d or \u201ccreed\u201d. The courts recognize freedom of religion to include two aspects \u2013 belief and conduct. A person\/community has the right to believe and act on that belief subject to reasonable limits. UC only recognizes the right to religious belief and is not at all interested in the right to exercise those beliefs. In other words, they do not have much patience for universities carrying out their faith in practice on their university campus.<\/p>\n
The Universities Canada enforcement policy will not permit the use of \u201cbona fide occupational requirement\u201d exemptions in human rights legislation. This is the most amazing aspect of the whole issue \u2013 you have to waive your rights under legislation that is meant to protect you! To understand what that means you need to know that Canadian human rights protections allow religious organizations (and other cultural groups) to discriminate (for example, in its hiring practices) to maintain their identity. Our legislatures understood that if religious universities were to continue as such they must be able to ensure that their staff, faculty, and student population are active participants and followers of their religious community. A faith-based school is no longer faith-based if those on campus are no longer following its faith in practice.<\/p>\n
UC\u2019s \u201canti-discriminatory\u201d jargon wraps itself in a blanket of \u201cinclusiveness\u201d when in reality it is an attempt to conceal anti-religious bigotry. Consider the following: 99.9% of the constituent members of the Universities Canada will have no problem with this by-law because it only affects the very few faith-based universities. If the only impact is negative against faith-based universities it is no longer about equality. It is about exclusion. Simply put the by-law seeks to expunge the religious schools from the club. It says, \u201cYou are not wanted.\u201d<\/p>\n
Philip Landon, Vice-President, Governance and Programs at UC sent a circular to the membership noting that UC has \u201cbeen considering this complex and challenging issue for some time.\u201d Why would it be so \u201ccomplex and challenging\u201d if 99+% will have no problem with the by-law? I suggest it was \u201ccomplex and challenging\u201d because they want to do indirectly what they cannot do directly \u2013 that is, to get rid of faith-based universities from their membership. Indeed, the complexity comes from the fact that, as the Supreme Court said in its decision to allow a Sikh boy to wear his kirpan to school, religious tolerance is a foundational principle of our democracy. UC has found it challenging to craft a policy that would be laser sharp to exclude the faith-based universities and yet maintain that they mean no harm. That takes skill, a lot of work, and time.<\/p>\n
All of which UC had, as Landon noted. Developing and adding the \u201cnon-discrimination criterion\u201d to UC\u2019s \u201cby-laws has been the focus of careful and in-depth discussion by the Board, Governance Committee and membership over the past six years.\u201d And it included \u201can expansive, respectful and thoughtful dialogue, moderated by former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci.\u201d It was \u201con the agenda of the Governance Committee eight times, and the focus of Board discussion seven times,\u201d and he assured the members that \u201cthroughout this time\u2026communications with the presidents of the member institutions most concerned<\/strong> by this potential change remained regular and open.\u201d (Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n While the communication was \u201cregular and open\u201d the fact remains faith-based universities will, if this by-law goes through, have a very difficult time being able to become a member of Universities Canada, or if a current member, remain so. That is not only unfortunate it is a rejection of the principle of religious tolerance. That should concern everyone. For assuredly as the religious communities are not tolerated today we can expect that there will be others tomorrow.<\/p>\n Why should faith-based universities be concerned about UC membership? First, membership in UC is seen by many organizations as a benchmark for other privileges. For example, a university student athletics program will not be able to compete in university sport leagues unless the university is a UC member. Therefore a faith-based university will lose its ability to attract athletic students. That is a huge loss. Second, according to UC\u2019s T3010 (being its annual return filed with CRA) it distributed $16.5 million in 2015 in scholarships and grants to universities across the country; third, UC membership makes it easier for graduates of faith-based universities to have their degrees recognized by graduate programs in other Canadian universities; finally, UC receives some $6.8 million\/year from the federal government making it a quasi-government actor.<\/p>\n To see another prominent actor in the public square limit the full participation of religious based universities is disconcerting. It is offensive in our society that a religious community has to constantly be on guard, looking over its shoulder for the next attack. Members of Universities Canada would do well not to vote for the proposed by-law. Faith-based universities, simply living their faith in compliance with Canadian laws, ought to be welcomed not excluded from the sisterhood of universities that claims the inclusive moniker \u201cUniversities Canada.\u201d UC would do well to heed the Supreme Court in 2001, \u201cThe diversity of Canadian society is partly reflected in the multiple religious organizations that mark the societal landscape and this diversity of views should be respected.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Universities Canada\u2019s (UC) Board of Directors proposed a new by-law for adoption at its October 2016 Membership Meeting that discriminates against faith-based universities. Framed in benevolent language, UC\u2019s proposal is anything but. UC is the club that all universities want to be a part of. It claims to be \u201cthe… More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ts_fic_featured_image_caption":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[137],"tags":[141,318],"series":[],"class_list":["post-23113","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-religious-freedom","tag-universities-canada"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23113","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23113"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23113\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23113"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23113"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23113"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=23113"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}