CTF bullying and misinformation: just what’s ‘wacky’ about rape prevention research?

Posted on July 02, 2014, 2:35 am
12 mins

Canadian Taxpayers Association Federal Director Gregory Thomas dressed up as a professor, with a man dressed as a pig, at a CTF news conference trashing government support for academic research. A cameraman can be seen at left obligingly filming. Below: Dr. Melanie Beres, unfairly ridiculed by the CTF for her 2006 thesis; Mr. Thomas when he’s dressed as a grownup.

According to the comedians at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a $17,500 grant by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to a promising young Alberta-trained sociologist whose research looks for ways to improve rape-prevention education is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

If you ask me, the CTF’s sophomoric “tongue-in-cheek, cap-and-gown ceremony on Parliament Hill to shine the spotlight on some of the most wacky grants handed out by the federal government’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for university research over the past few years” misses the mark both as comedy and commentary.

Leastways, even if CTF Federal Director Gregory Thomas’s news release and insulting video performance suggest otherwise, surely most of us think there’s nothing “wacky” about sexual violence. I personally would be pleased to see more of my tax dollars spent on research that seeks ways to reduce it.

But the CTF’s frat-boy humour in the service of neoliberal economics and its apparent view that any topic sensitive to women’s rights is inappropriate for government support reveals both sloppy research and a nasty bullying streak on the part of the organization, whose field operatives singled out the work of individual young academics for ridicule and public contempt.

It is no coincidence, it is said here, that six of the seven academic works named by the CTF for attack were authored by women.

But I guess if you’re a young scholar who manages to get a government grant for academic work in a field the CTF doesn’t approve of – which would presumably cover pretty well everything outside petroleum engineering and conservative advocacy – you can count on being at risk of public derision by this AstroTurf group.

When the CTF boys picked on Dr. Melanie Beres, who received her PhD in sociology at the University of Alberta and now teaches at the University of Otago in New Zealand, they obviously didn’t bother to read her thesis with much care.

For, while it uses colloquial language and a colourful title – which is obviously what caught the attention of the CTF’s “researcher” – even at a casual glance by an old newshound like me, largely unschooled in academic sociology, it is quickly apparent it is an example of legitimate scholarly research.

That did not, however, deter the CTF from pulling a few lines out of context from Dr. Beres’ thesis – entitled Sexual Consent to Heterosexual Casual Sex Among Young Adults Living in Jasper – in order to attack the fact she was awarded a $17,500 SSHRC grant for her work.

If they trashed the quality of Dr. Beres’ research or hurt her personally by singling her out, they presumably felt this was legitimate collateral damage in their effort to work with the Harper Government to justify its attack on science and social science research that fails to reach the conclusions the government desires.

“My thesis is not so much about casual sex, but more about sexual consent,” Dr. Beres observed in an email to me. “The goal of the thesis was to learn how young people consent to sex in order to improve rape prevention education. The context (Jasper) was chosen because of the high rates of casual sex and drinking. I wanted to choose a potentially contentious environment to examine issues of consent.”

Interestingly, the CTF “researchers” seem to be obsessed with sex and sexual issues in the academic papers they singled out for attack. This reflects their sly understanding of the news judgment of lazy journalists, who have been socialized to believe the notion that “sex equals news.”

Moreover, writing newspaper articles mocking scholars for their work is among the oldest and laziest tricks in the journalistic playbook. The CTF’s operatives, at least one of whom typically dresses up as a pig for these events, merely exploited a couple of the most obvious failings of modern journalism and were rewarded with a few cheap headlines that reinforce their ideological goals.

The CTF obviously had to dig pretty deep to find topics that met its criteria for scorn. Dr. Beres’ PhD thesis, for example, was submitted in 2006, marked as 2007 by the CTF’s crack research team in its background paper.

“I could have titled my thesis Foucauldian negotiations: Discursive constructions of everyday intimacies,” Dr. Beres observed dryly. “It would be more or less accurate and would likely have slipped past the CTF member who was looking for ‘wacky’ research.”

“But this would also make my research less accessible,” she explained. “I want people to be able to read it and to engage with it. As a former rape prevention educator it is paramount to me that my research speaks beyond the ivory tower.”

“The fact that CTF picked out my research demonstrates that it is accessible to those not particularly used to engaging in scholarly endeavours. To some extent, this means my writing has been successful,” she added generously.

As is well known, the CTF gives the impression it’s a large membership-based organization, but in fact has only five or six members – its board of directors – at any given time. Similarly, the CTF purports to be non-partisan, but in reality acts in partisan support of the goals of the Harper Conservatives and their counterparts in the provinces.

The CTF’s anti-SSHRC histrionics – which the group tastelessly calls “Screwed U” – is part of its “Generation Screwed Movement,” an effort to propagandize college students in the Conservative Party’s neoliberal worldview and encourage intergenerational strife to further tax gains for the wealthy.

CTF operatives and publicists have also proven to be an able talent pool for the federal Conservatives’ political ranks.

Occasionally, it must be noted, the CTF protests Conservative policies – such as the continued availability of SSHRC grants for young researchers – but usually only in the furtherance of long-term Conservative policy goals.

Knowing this is important to understand the motivation of the CTF’s attacks on Dr. Beres and her colleagues. They support a likely Conservative goal of reducing funding for all social science research, because too often it doesn’t support party policy. This is the same instinct that motivates attacks on the traditional sciences when they demonstrate politically unpalatable truths – such as, for example, the fact Earth’s atmosphere is growing hotter.

Social science research findings, Dr. Beres observed, “often shed light on inequalities and injustices in the social world. This is the case for research on poverty, families, work, sexuality or any other social topic.”

“Those who have a lot of privilege and don’t care to address these inequalities sometimes try to discredit research that exposes inequalities,” she noted. “They do so because they feel threatened by the findings or fear the potential loss of their privilege if action is taken to address these inequalities.”

Dr. Beres’ research points to the way male and female desires are treated and valued differently in our society – and how that can lead to sexual violence. That the CTF didn’t bother to mention her conclusions, she noted, suggests they may not have wanted to hear them. “It is sometimes much easier for people to dismiss findings they don’t like rather than to take a look at themselves and their social world and see things that need to change.”

I’d say that’s a given. Consider what Mr. Thomas, who presumably didn’t actually read the paper himself, had to say when he trashed it: “Now that it’s public knowledge that the federal government will pay you $17,500 to hang out in a ski resort for a couple of months and investigate casual sex, we expect every frat boy in the country to be lining up for a research grant to replicate this study – in Whistler, Banff, Tremblant, you name it.”

Well who would know frat boys like the frat boys at the CTF? Look to the Harper Conservative Government for the priorities and worldview of the CTF. They are the same.

As for Dr. Beres’ 2006 thesis research, it has already achieved the goals she set out for it. “It has been used to inform and shape sexual violence prevention programming in Canada and in New Zealand,” she told me. “I am currently on an advisory board to support the development of a national rape prevention program for New Zealand high schools.”

I call that extremely good value for a very modest tax investment that all Canadians can be proud of – we could fund almost 35,000 research projects like Dr. Beres’ for the cost of one F-35 warplane!

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

18 Comments to: CTF bullying and misinformation: just what’s ‘wacky’ about rape prevention research?

  1. Alex P

    July 2nd, 2014

    I suppose that money could have sponsored muffins for a few break-out groups at a Manning conference, but really, this is just an attack on academia. I wonder if I’d get pounded by the CTF asking for funding for a thesis titled, “Mister Prime Minister, why are you so dreamy?”

    If my memory serves Jasper was once, and may still be, the Alberta municipality with the highest rate of sexual infections. I say ‘may’ because once Ron Leipert refused to run PSAs about the sudden surge in Syphilis it became any place, really. (Little historical note, the HIV epidemic was preceded by a Syphilis wave in places like San Francisco. It’s the easier infection.)

    But then, the people in power suffer from “imposter syndrome,” the constant dread of being discovered to be just another mortal. They attack any finding the there’s unfinished work, and that they are expected to do the work. Don’t get the vapors, boys, just keep reading books with “Leadership” in the title.

    Reply
    • Filostrato

      July 3rd, 2014

      Re theses entitled “Mister Prime Minister, why are you so dreamy?”

      I was wondering about that, too. I know that’s my first question whenever the newspapers put one of those ultra-close-up shots of Super Steve at the top of an article about the latest pronouncement from the Inner Sanctum and he who dwells therein.

      Reply
  2. Rob

    July 2nd, 2014

    Personally I’d rather have the F-35 “warplane”. You should be proud of our military instead of running them down. Shame!

    Reply
    • July 2nd, 2014

      God bless you, Rob! You made me laugh out loud. If you really cared about our armed forces, you’d fight like the dickens to keep our military pilots out of that one-engined death trap, which like the CF-104, another aircraft we didn’t need, has already been dubbed the new Widow Maker. Our armed forces need coastal patrol frigates, helicopters, transport aircraft, you name it. They don’t need a nuclear stealth bomber that costs a million extra dollars for new stealth paint alone every time you do the airborne equivalent of replacing the spark plugs, changing the oil and rotating the tires.

      Reply
    • Athabascan

      July 2nd, 2014

      Personally, I’d rather have flying saucers. The chances of getting either one in the next 10 years is slim to none. There are no F-35 even now. They are a badly conceived idea and there never been one that flies. Besides, we don’t even know the cost. The final delivered (that’s a joke) is just as speculative as the airplane itself.

      Reply
    • Filostrato

      July 3rd, 2014

      The U.S. Air Force just grounded their fleet of FT-35’s (Flying Turkey) last week after one of them burst into flames in flight.

      Aircraft designer and defense analyst Pierre Sprey on the F-35 last year on the Fifth Estate: it’s a waste of time and a blatant transfer of the tax money of citizens to the military-industrial complex. (But who’s listening to Eisenhower these days? Although they should…). We’re talking major waste of money here.

      The F-35 is a turkey

      Reply
  3. July 2nd, 2014

    Well-done, David. Thank you for looking into this. I was particularly depressed that the Global TV piece was done by a U of A graduate. She appeared to have no qualms with accepting CTF’s bumpf about the U of A rape prevention study and thereby attacking her alma mater. It is predictable that the CTF would not bother to read something they are attacking, but it is unacceptable for a journalist not to read. It is clear who the “professional” is in this case: the blogger who actually did a little research.

    Reply
  4. Martin d'Entremont

    July 2nd, 2014

    Joseph Goebbel’s would be impressed by the CTF’s ability to demonize.

    Reply
  5. V. Jobson

    July 2nd, 2014

    By the way, is the pig a board member or just a supporter? Can we now say that the CTF has 5 or 6 members including at least one pig?

    Reply
    • Northern Loon

      July 2nd, 2014

      Or we can say that one of the board members likes to present as a pig. The rest of the board are more cautious about open displays of porcinus, but they certainly behave as swine.

      Reply
  6. Pogo

    July 2nd, 2014

    In the country formerly known as “the land of the free and the home of the brave”, we witness the home office of this tripe on a daily basis. For example; recently abortion clinics there had the buffer zone that keeps the “always right and never wrong” guardians of the baby Jesus, from showering pregnant girls (many victimized by rape) and their escorts with spittle and threats, eliminated by the Supreme Court. Along with that ruling, those “glowing angels of the supreme wisdom” have declared that home care workers needn’t pay agency fees (dues) to the SEIU for the significant wage improvements that union negotiated on their behalf. That’s right work style freedom right there biotches!
    At least here, our high court is putting up a fight!
    Daniel Smith is ground zero of this crap and if you thought Allison “my aim is true” Redford was an enema disguised as a birthday cake just wait ’til the parh-tay of the Fraser Institute, “Calgary Schools ya’ll”… yay we’re free!

    In other news researchers funded by Bob Jones University, have released a bombshell, study June 30th. Un-named insider sources claim; that the paper has finally laid to rest the controversy over the shape of the earth. The study, according to anonymous insiders was funded by the PMO, and the same sources state that former Conservative Party of Canada, Minister of Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, was overheard to have stated: “that after spending a weekend in Weyburn Saskatchewan, evidence is conclusive, the earth is flat”. At press time, Sun news had followed with a headline: “WE TOLD YOU SO” !!111!!! “TAKE THAT SUZUKI”!!!111!!!!

    Reply
  7. Expat Albertan

    July 2nd, 2014

    The dudes at the CTF don’t look to have had much casual sex in their lifetime, consensual or otherwise (although maybe the pig is getting some action…).

    Reply
  8. Alvin Finkel

    July 2nd, 2014

    It is worth emphasizing that the CTF is not a membership organization. It is not a federation to which all taxpayers are invited to join (many taxpayers after all are liberal or socialist and might easily overwhelm a few old rich fools who think they have the exclusive right to call themselves taxpayers). It is simply an organization of five or six male corporate millionaires who oppose government expenditures that don’t benefit them personally. They are irresponsible idiots if they think that research on the causes of forced casual sex are of no importance to Canadians. But there remain large elements of the population, unfortunately, who are sexist, racist, and homophobic, and though most of them are just poor schleps with no money, the corporate crowd (like the “Moral Majority”) form alliances with them by ignoring the billions that governments pour into industry and focusing attention on a few million that is spent on studying social problems that yahoos believe are not problems at all.

    Reply
  9. Filostrato

    July 3rd, 2014

    So, the non-members (although they think they are) of the CTF are giving their money to people who dress up like pigs and give news conferences, which the media insist on covering as if they were genuine?

    What do these CTFers actually do besides dressing up and making fools of the people who support them? A concerned public wants to know.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (not be published)