August 15, 2011
Browse our latest issue here or download the PDF version here.
There’s no ‘God’ in graduation
Religious aspects of convocation insult students and devalue their hard work
Upon reaching the gruelling end of a long and tiresome journey, students embark across a stage for the convocation. Yet, despite the movement toward multicultural inclusiveness and tolerance, this is one stage that keeps the flame of bigotry burning bright.
At convocation, new graduates are presented with a charge by the University’s chancellor, in which he states: “I charge you to use [the powers, rights, and privileges of University degrees] for the glory of God.” It’s commonly understood that the big-G “God” here is some variant of the monotheistic God (or the one Jews, Christians, and Muslims live in fear of).
A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests that around 36 per cent of Canadians under 25 don’t believe in a god. This means that when the chancellor issues his charge, he’s discriminating against all the students who disagree with the idea of living in fear of a deity. He also offends the senses of the majority who believe that a public institution should have no stance on religious issues. Atheism and agnosticism aren’t the only beliefs under attack— the idea of separation of church and state is as well.
After discovering this issue, the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics (UAAA) drafted a letter which was sent to the President’s Office on 14 July. Hope for a quick move to inclusiveness was dashed when, nearly a month later, the UAAA received a brief response stating that office had discussed the issue earlier and decided against doing anything. After the the minutes of the meeting featuring this discussion were requested, the President’s office decided that this was an issue that required a FOIPP request.
It’s disappointing to hear that this University wishes to remain in its dark-aged roots, and that they couldn’t even provide a reason for their decision not to change the charge even with sizable opposition. In spite of relatively little awareness of this issue, a petition has recieved over a hundred signatures from students who are outraged by this break in secular values and the separation of church and state, and a comparable number of members in a Facebook group for the same purpose. However, their voices remain unacknowledged.
The push for a secular convocation has tremendous support not just from atheists and humanists but from students, alumni, and faculty of diverse backgrounds—including people who deeply believe in God but who support the separation of Church and state and recognize that this is a public, not private, university. Yet, the University continues to ignore these growing concerns, and refuses to even take the time to justify or debate their position.
The push towards secularism is also not without precendence. The University of Calgary’s admission is to grant degrees to those who have “earned” them and give them the “rights and privileges, powers, and responsibilities pertaining to those degrees.” The University of Toronto also secularized its convocation several years ago. Clearly, the U of A can look to be as progressive as their fellow institutions.
I’m not requesting the charge to say “use your glory to disprove god and villify religion,” I just want to feel welcome in a ceremony that we have all equally earned. Further, I don’t wish to define “god” in some way that it makes everyone happy, as some would suggest. I don’t arbitrarily interepert words differently to get through the day. Interpreting an “F” on your transcript as “Fantastic” doesn’t make it so. The University’s charge comes from the charge from Oxford University, which has a clearly Christian foundation.
It shouldn’t be unreasonable for a group of students who pay upwards of $25 000 to get a degree to ask to be included in a celebration of their achievements. The President’s disregard for such legitimate concerns is abhorrent and intolerant, and I call for a secular convocation at the University of Alberta and an end to the denigration of the hard work of all students.
Can't accept charge
By AnonymousSo, if I can't accept the charge given to me by the chancellor then do I not get to accept my degree? Do I get to say "I don't accept your charge, thanks but no thanks?" If I say that, do I still get to walk across the stage with my little piece of paper?
What is the point of saying it? Just take it out.
Secular Convocation please!
By Paul SandhuI agree whole heartedly. It would be prudent to point out that this matter is of keen interest not only to students but University of Alberta Alumni as well.
You raise a great point and really put your finger on it Ian, I couldn't quite place it at that time of convocation but there was a frustration in me upon hearing the charge, and for a few moments it cast a shadow over my happiness and pride of accomplishment.
I'd hope that instead of trumpeting itself as a progressive and leading institution the U of A finds the wisdom to 'walk the walk.'
This has been swept under the carpet for too long...
By Paul R. WelkeI made the original complaint in 2004, and it appears that the Administration is STILL doing nothing.
I have not been to a Convocation ceremony for this very reason. I refuse to have that charge bestowed upon me. I was in Bosnia on a NATO mission when I got my degree (I finished classes and got on the plane shortly thereafter). They mailed it to me along with a copy of the program. I was told that because of my unique situation, that I'd be allowed to cross the stage at a later ceremony when I returned from my peacekeeping tour.
After reading the program, I got in touch with members of the SU Executive with my objection to the charge. They were basically shut down and told that "the word 'god' isn't used in a religious context here" and that my objection was not valid.
For the record, I would still like to go through a Convocation Ceremony, but not until the charge is modified.
Did you submit the FOIPP request?
By David MilesThanks for an interesting article Ian.
It would be very interesting to read the minutes of the meeting where this was discussed and examine their justification. Did you eventually submit a FOIPP request? This seems like a clear violation of the UofA's policy on human rights:
"44.3 POLICY
It is the policy of the University of Alberta that acts of discrimination or harassment committed by any member of, visitor to, or group within the University community are strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated."
Where discrimination is defined as:
"44.5.2 Discrimination: Discrimination is any act or omission based on race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, marital status, age, ancestry, place of origin, family status, source of income, sexual orientation or political belief when that act or omission results in loss of or limit on opportunities to work or to fully participate in campus life or which offends the dignity of the person."
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/humanrights/pdfs/DH_Policy_GFC_Section_44...
Seems clear enough to me.
religious convocations
By DOROTHY L HAYSGood for you Ian. I don't know how many times in my 70 years that I have sat down for prayers in public places. Religion and prayers have no place in public institutions. Keep fighting. I am & I will until the day I die. I started an atheist movement in Thunder Bay but it was like "pulling hens' teeth," as the saying goes. I am 2nd VP of The Humanist Assoc. of Canada. Good luck in your efforts.
Dorothy
This is an interesting
By AnonymousThis is an interesting topic. Instead of an opinion piece, I would have liked to see this in the GW as a news story so that we could get input from every side of the argument. I personally feel that this subject is way too "touchy" for lop-sided coverage.
I want to know how University admin and the Chaplains feel about this.
Blah blah blah
By Stephen"...when the chancellor issues his charge, he’s discriminating against all the students who disagree with the idea of living in fear of a deity"
Calling this discrimination is inflammatory and irresponsible. That kind of rhetoric conflates situations of real discrimination with what is simply a traditional convocation charge. Situations like hate speech, gay bashing and islamophobia.
You want to language changed, fine, but this isn't discrimination.
I am seriously considering
By MikeI am seriously considering not attending my convocation this spring if the charge isn't changed.
Re: Blah blah blah
By David MilesCalling this discrimination is inflammatory and irresponsible. That kind of rhetoric conflates situations of real discrimination with what is simply a traditional convocation charge. Situations like hate speech, gay bashing and islamophobia.
I don't think that is an accurate comparison. It was simply a traditional charge until it was raised as an issue and the University refused to change it. By refusing to address the issue the University is acting in a discriminating against those who object to the language (and, from my perspective, failing to comply with the UofA policy on human rights)
Re: Blah Blah Blah
By Brian DJust because something's traditional doesn't mean it's a good idea. Look at Cheese Rolling, the Running of the Bulls, or traditional baby-dropping rituals in India, for example. A tradition needs to stand on its own merits.
Unfortunately, the charge to use our degrees "for the glory of God” is discriminatory to at least three groups:
1) Obviously, the atheists and agnostics, as the charge posits the existence of God. If one doesn't accept God's existence, the charge is as incapable of being fulfilled as a charge to stop the sun from rising over Edmonton tomorrow.
2) Deists and pantheists. Both groups do posit the existence of god, but it isn't the big-G God used in the charge (rather, it's a noninterventionist god that created (or is) the universe and has no personal relationship with us). To deists and pantheists, the concept of glorifying god is arrogant, pretentious, and impossible, any more than a petri-dish-bound bacterium can be expected to have a personal relationship with the biologist at the next table.
3) Polythestic religions, most notably the Hindus. (Buddhists may also qualify, although Buddhism doesn't teach its followers to glorify any of the Devas, and thus fits under complaint 2.) Under such a belief system, which god (singular in the charge) are we being asked to glorify? Big-G God is used in English to denote the Abrahamic strictly-monotheistic God (of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), which is irreconcilable with a polytheistic worldview. For some reason, I doubt you'd be so bold attacking this claim if it were put forth by a Buddhist group.
(I could go a step further and argue that the strict monotheism implied by big-G God further alienates henotheistic religions that do not encompass Abrahamic faiths, including the Native American faiths which we accept and grant a convocation ceremony separate from other students who don't share this belief, but I won't.)
In all cases, these groups are forced to either drastically alter their worldview or be unable to comply with the charge. Therefore, to charge the students in such a fashion is discriminatory. A neutral phrase, such as a challenge to use your degree "to the best of your ability" is not.
What many opponents of a secular convocation seem to miss is the simple fact that 'secularism' isn't a religion any more than "bald" is a hair color. It isn't replacing one religious statement with another (no one's suggesting you use your degree for the glory of Zeus, for instance). Nor is it an attempt to please everybody, as Ian mentions in his op-ed.
It's replacing a statement that gives special recognition to one group of people (and is therefore incompatible with all other groups) with one that gives recognition to no group of people (which is compatible with everyone). Similar linguistic changes have occurred in traditional documents worldwide that were exclusionary -- the classic example being crafting gender-neutral statements; womens'-rights activists didn't demand feminine pronouns but rather neutral ones, much as the UAAA isn't demanding atheistic statements but rather secular ones.
Explain to me, please, why this is a bad thing. I'd be expecially interested in hearing it if it didn't blindly appeal to tradition of any sort (the University's tradition or the tradition of scripture).
Just cut it out and see who notices.
By MichaelaI'd be happy to agree to use my degree for the glory of Zeus. At least it shows acceptance of something broader than the cut-and-dried, automatically-assumed Christianity of the masses. It's not just atheists and agnostics that take issue here. What if I don't believe in a God, but a prophet? What if I believe in many gods? What if I believe in an Earth Mother? What if, as is the case with me,
"I believe in time,
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.
I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;
they are the product of natural forces
in a majestic but impersonal universe,
grander and richer than we can imagine,
a source of endless opportunities for discovery.
I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,
but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.
I accept human mortality.
We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.
I rejoice in this life that I have,
and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me,
and an earth that will abide without me."
Poor confused secularists.
By colinThe whole idea of 'separation of church and state' is a misinterpretation of the first amendment of the AMERICAN constitution. There is no parallel legislation in Canada.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states explicitly...
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:..."
and...
"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion; "
The university is entirely within its rights as guaranteed by our Charter to include God in its convocation.
And yes, you have a right to complain, but your cries of discrimination are really quite pathetic and wholly unfounded.
The university is not a
By KrisThe university is not a person, with individual rights and freedoms. The university is a public institution, that must respect the rights and freedoms of those attending it. This includes not ramming religious rhetoric down the throats of those attending as a part of the ceremony involved in acquiring an earned degree.
I remember feeling honestly uncomfortable during both of my two convocation ceremonies at this university when the religious bullshit was released upon us. That is because my beliefs were being discriminated against, and that is a violation of my rights. This is not unfounded, this is the honest truth of the matter!
Imagine if the told us to use our degrees to the glory of His noodleness, the flying spaghetti monster? It makes just as much sense to me!!
Universities and rights
By colinA University has rights and freedoms and responsibilities, just like persons. By mentioning God in the convocation, they are not disrespecting the rights of anyone.
You act as though the mere mention of God in your presence is a violation of your rights. Wow. Time for some thicker skin. The university is the ideal place for the free exchange of ideas and if you secularists are going to go off pouting every time God is mentioned, you are quickly going to lose what little traction you have in the culture. Like it or not, Christianity has a spot at the table, just like secularism.
You complain of 'ramming religious rhetoric down the throats...', yet all you offer is more of the same. You insist that your particular claims about metaphysical realities be the only ones allowed to be mentioned in public. This is precisely why Antony Flew accuses Dawkins of being a secularist bigot.
I think the point has been
By KrisI think the point has been made by now here, so for the reply to your next post just read, without your blinders on, those that have already been written above.
The answer to the problem though is not "hey, grow a thicker skin".
If you were to read carefully, you'd see that I'm not making any claims about any particular metaphysical realities whatsoever. Whether I'm religious or not is a completely moot point here.
What we are talking about is that the university should not involve religion at all in the convocation ceremony. The public institution must respect the diverse belief sets of the people attending, by not selecting a particular one (Christianity) for the convocation ceremony. It is a really, really simple concept.
But I'm sure you'll argue against this again, and the driving force behind that argument will be your desire to push the Christian agenda, which is what they've brainwashed you to do, sadly.
Unacceptable
By MikeTake your foot out of your behind.
“I charge you to use [the powers, rights, and privileges of University degrees] for the glory of God.”
Is not only a casual mention of God in the presence of non-Christian students. It represents far more than that. It is a statement by the highest university authority that instructs the graduate on how their degree should be used.
This is a public institution and here is a direct case of an authority figure instructing graduates that they should use their degree to further a Christian agenda.
It's unacceptable and the reaction from the president is nothing short of ignorant and offencive. Public institutions have the duty to uphold the highest standards of performance to the public because they must set the prime example for communities as a whole.
Post new comment