Correspondence

Jan. 26/11 – Lifeline Lawyer Responds

Jan. 12/11 – CUSA Constitutional Board Decision Found to be Invalid due to Improper Proceedings

Dec. 17/10 – CUSA President Attempts to show that Legal Counsel and Representation was Permitted

Dec. 16/10 – Legal Counsel Responds to CUSA disallowing Legal Counsel to Represent Club President

Dec. 16/10 – CUSA President Disallows Legal Counsel to Represent Club President

Dec. 14/10 – Legal Counsel Should be Permitted at Constitutional Hearing, Legal Counsel to CUSA President

Dec. 1/10 – CUSA President to Legal Counsel

Nov. 29/10 – Lawyer’s Response to CUSA Letter of November 29th , 2010

Nov. 29/10 – CUSA Denies Legal Counsel

Nov. 29/10 – Carleton Lifeline Responds to University Administration Threats

Nov. 18/10 – University Proposes Discriminatory Agreement

Nov. 18/10 – Student Affairs Threatens Students

Nov. 18/10 – Carleton Lifeline Responds Pursuing Legal Action Against CUSA

Nov. 18/10 – CUSA Responds Restating Carleton Lifeline must Change Constitution, so as not to infringe upon a woman’s right to choose, in order to be a club

Nov. 15/10 – Carleton Lifeline Responds to CUSA requesting the Student Union Follow its own Policies

Nov. 11/10 – Students Association (CUSA) Demands Club change Pro-Life Constitution or No Club Status Letter 12

Oct. 14/10 – Carleton Lifeline Asks University Administration to Refrain from Speaking to Arrested Students Letter 11

Oct. 8/10 – Carleton Lifeline Asks for GAP Signs to be Returned Letter 10

Oct. 6/10 – Carleton Lifeline asks University Spokesman to Stop Misleading Public Letter 9

Oct. 1/10 Carleton University Stands Firm, GAP is NOT Allowed in the Quad Letter 8

Oct. 1/10 – Carleton Lifeline Reiterates that the University is Censoring Students Letter 7

Sept. 30/10 – Carleton University Maintains that GAP is Not Allowed in the Quad Letter 6

Sept. 28/10 – After Failing to Respond in a Timely manner, Carleton Lifeline tells University they will Proceed with GAP Letter 5

Sept. 21/10 – Carleton Lifeline Requests an Answer from University Letter 4

Aug. 26/10 – Carleton University is Considering Options Letter 3

Aug. 18/10 – Carleton Lifeline Responds Stating the Universities Denial to Allow GAP in the Quad is Censorship Letter 2

Aug. 9/10 – Carleton University Denies GAP on the Basis that it is Offensive and Disturbing to Some Letter 1

3 Responses to Correspondence

  1. Alissa Bjorn says:

    I am here to ask for your help. Pregnancy Care Centers around the world have helped thousands of women choose life for their unborn baby. And right now the Kamloops PCC has been given and incredible opportunity to win $25,000 to help the women that come to them. Then have been nominated for Joeys Only’s Community Revival Project and we need your votes! Anyone can vote from anywhere in the world, with as many email addresses as they have. So I am asking you to share this and encourage your friends to please help us. We only have til the end of November! If we can save even one little life it is worth it…Alissa
    http://www.joeys.ca/contest/communityrevivalproject/nominations/pregnancycarecenterofkamloops.html

  2. Shannon Walls says:

    Although I am fundamentally commited to pro-choice, as a Carleton student I am appalled that the right to a free exchange of ideas is being violated by my university and my student council, and they *will* be hearing from me. Good for you for standing up for what you believe in, and good luck with the re-instatement of the club.

  3. Here’s what I’m writing your President and Vice-Chancellor:

    Dr. Roseann O’Reilly Runte,
    President and Vice-Chancellor
    Carleton University

    Dr. Runte:

    As a former instructor at Carleton University, I encourage you to do the right thing regarding Carleton Lifeline, and protect the free-speech rights of these Canadian students.

    If I had time, I am sure that I could investigate the groups allowed by the Student Union to operate on campus, and find ones with views that varying numbers of Canadians would reject, and with good cause. The academic environment, however, and the university, with its policy of tenure, are meant to protect, not one set of ideas, but the free exchange of ideas, the honest seeking and statement of truth, and not stifling, anti-intellectual conformity to currently prevailing political views, put forward under the flimsy guise of an “anti-discrimination policy.”

    Carleton can do better. Please do what you can to make a difference.

    Yours sincerely,

    Chris Humphrey, Ph.D.
    5709 McCandless Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15201

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s