Dear Mr. Watt,

This letter is to speak out against your position on the insurance problems faced by OPIRG-Carleton, and your proposed eviction of the group on October 29 should their insurance problems continue past that date.

Mr. Watt, I have been a student at Carleton since 1993, and I’m now a Ph. D. student nearing the end of my studies here. In that time I haven’t been directly involved with OPIRG, but have respected the work they do. OPIRG’s function of social activism and research on environmental issues is a vital one, and one that I see as essentially compatible with the university’s role in society. A university is a place to question the status quo, to look beyond conventional views and to develop the ideas and technologies to make the world a better place. OPIRG, for many years funded, supported and staffed by Carleton students, faculty and staff members, acts to research and promote social, community and environmental ideas and technologies to make the world a better place.

After 24 years on campus, OPIRG has earned the respect of faculty, staff and students as a valuable and venerable organization; like our long-standing campus radio station CKCU, OPIRG is one vehicle by which we at Carleton extend our campus community past our geographic boundaries. Indeed, OPIRG is part of Carleton University for me, and for the others who study, teach, live, work and play on campus.

The university has a responsibility to support this important group on campus through its period of difficulty. As we are all aware the insurance industry has been quick to enrich itself since the events of September 11, 2001 by creating an overly broad definition of terrorism (like “ideologically motivated acts to influence the public or government”) which includes virtually all lawful protest activities. OPIRG, as a lawful organization that has championed many worthy positions, would likely be cheerfully defined as a terrorist group by most insurers. We at the university, however, have a responsibility to stand up against such transparent commercial tactics. It is the role of the university to stand firm against commercial and political schemes to limit dissent, freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Academic freedom is one of the basic principles of our society and the university must recognize and embrace each opportunity to defend this principle or risk becoming irrelevant; worse, we risk becoming a faceless commercial enterprise that values fiscal factors above academic ones.

When an essential part of the university has operating problems, the first question we ask is not usually “how fast can we eliminate that part of the university?” Although they may not always have agreed with the university administration, the OPIRG group is entirely consistent with the principles and functions of the university. We should be standing shoulder to shoulder with OPIRG against the forces in society which are threatened by plain, lawful and truthful speech and action by its citizens.

Mr. Watt, as an officer of the university you should be the one making these arguments: widely, publically and forcefully. Instead you have opted to act as the insurance company’s stick man by holding the sword on their behalf.

Based on this observation, a sinister scenario now presents itself. Perhaps the university administration sees this insurance problem as an opportunity to eliminate an organization that has not always been supportive of university cutbacks and administrative decisions? Perhaps under the guise of insurance concerns, the administration thinks to rid itself of a thorn without having to look like the bad guy? Mr. Watt, if this scenario is true (and the university has done little to dispel the open suspicions of it) then you are the bad guy. Taking advantage of this proud organization’s misfortune to place the coffin nail you’ve been hiding behind your back would be a cowardly way to achieve a nefarious goal.

Mr. Watt, you and the rest of the administration need to help the university community to understand that this sinister scenario is not at work in your recent threat to evict OPIRG with ten days notice if they cannot come up with five million dollars of insurance. Here is what you must do to reassure us:

1. You need to remove your threat by reassuring OPIRG that their tenancy is not in immediate jeopardy. That the university will support OPIRG as a valuable part of the Carleton community. That we will see OPIRG through these challenges.


2. The university needs to stand up for OPIRG in the media and in society to denounce the actions of the insurance companies and promote the vital role in society of organizations like OPIRG.


3. The university should devote its resources to helping OPIRG make the alternative financial and insurance arrangements that will make it possible for them to stay on campus. This may require exploration of options regarding exactly what specific kinds of insurance coverage Carleton actually requires OPIRG to carry with respect to on-campus meetings, offices and activities.

Mr. Watt, it is these kinds of situations that show what kind of man you really are. Help us to see you as a respectable academic administrator who fights for academic rights and values; help us to banish any vision of you as an author of a sinister scenario to eliminate social activism on campus. Change your stance on OPIRG now.

Sincerely,
Colin Henein
Cognitive Science