No more funding for a "white male" disease, says Carleton University

The far left in Canada is alive and well. This is getting ridiculous, and sometimes I’m ashamed to call this place my home. The level of absurd political correctness here is really starting to make me sick…

Students drop Shinerama fundraiser for illness targeting Caucasians

Carleton University students have decided to pull out of a Canada-wide fundraiser that provides close to $1 million a year for cystic fibrosis research, given that the disease “has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men.”

To be fair, it was the extremely liberal students union that made this decision - not the students at the university. Still, they are elected to make decisions like these…and they’re not the only union to hold opinions like these in this fine nation.

How is cystic fibrosis a “male” disease when the deletarious allele isn’t located on a sex chromosome?

Their whole reasoning seems bizarre to me - they say that this fact recently came to their attention in the text of the decision…but I can’t help but asking “so what?” Even if it’s true, just like the way rheumatoid arthritis affects women more often than men, it’s still an awful condition that people have to deal with.

“And whereas cystic fibrosis has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men…”

Maybe they were reading a fake edit of the Wikipedia article on CF. Either way, they’re way out of line here.

Wikipedia states 7th chromosome:

As a Canadian, I hope to one day live in a country that will not judge a person by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.

That’s ridiculous. What makes one disease more worthy of support over another, simply because of the demographic of its victims? I’ll be interested to see what cause they choose as a substitute, if they do.

Unfortunately it’s not just Carleton, I went to UW - a very “academic” school- and the student union members were still verrryyy heavily left-leaning and ran a lot of offensive advertising campaigns. :shrug: Not much the average student can do about it.

Just confirmation of what many have been saying for a long time. The only two socially acceptable prejudices are those against Caucasian men and Catholics.

And don’t worry, Carleton already has that covered - they’ve banned pro-life clubs from being on campus.

I don’t know the motivation behind this decision but I would like to give you some food for thought. Diseases that mainly affect caucasians of either sex generally receive much more funding (simply by virtue of the fact that most North Americans are white and that is also where most of the money is) and publicity than diseases that tend to strike minority groups. This is fairly easy to ascertain with google. Perhaps the idea was that the money should go to oft overlooked and underfunded research into diseases found mainly in minority populations since there is already so much funding and research for these more mainstreat diseases. Too bad it’s made to sound so negatively racial if this is indeed the case. :shrug:

Well, I tried to do just that, but I was unable to find anything like that. Do you have any reliable sites in mind? Some of the big diseases that affect almost no white people (malaria, sickle cell anemia) have lots of research being done on them, either looking for means of prevention or treatment. But this seems to be a pretty clear case of political correctness taken to an extreme…I can’t believe the race and gender issues were even mentioned in the motion.

I can see how a different intention may have made this move more legitimate, but they seemed to make it quite clear that inclusiveness means helping fund research that is going to benefit more than just white men (which isn’t even the case with cystic fibrosis). It still makes me shake my head.

NIH: Estimates of Funding for Various Diseases, Conditions, Research Areas.

Good friends of my son-in-law had a young daughter that suffered with this horrible disease.:bighanky: The mother and father split up and divorced and the child died after years of suffering.:gopray2:

Yes she was Caucasian. :banghead: No SHE was not male.:banghead:

The inhumanity of people to other people sickens me.:gopray2:

To begin with, they sound abysmally ignorant. Cystic fibrosis doesn’t affect “men” - it is congenital and affects children of both sexes. Many of the boys affected won’t live long enough to grow up to be “men”.

God save us from political correctness run amok.

Thanks for that - that site doesn’t show any obvious skew…in fact, both malaria and sickle cell disease receive more funding than CF :rolleyes:

This is madness! This is NOT how medical research is done! If they stopped providing funding for research and treatment for, say, Sickle Cell Anemia "because all its victims are Black) or cervical cancer, "because all of its victims are female) os Tay-Sachs “because it’s a genetic condition carried by Jews”…? is so entirely arsy-varsy I can’t even think clearly or for that matter, without cussing a blue streak!

And I -am- a raging liberal - but I’m not a moron! But all of my family, also wild-eyed social liberals, nearly is in various branches of medical research. Oh man, are we going to hear some ranting over the turkey this year! This is the kind of thing that cannot be permitted to affect academic researchers, most of whom actually barely scratch a decent living (and the job security is nothing to crow about- they don’t just throw tenure around like nerfballs, no matter what people think), who are really, truly giving their all to make the world a better, healthier place.

Stupid, stupid kids, and even stupider University board for letting the lunatics run the asylum.

Pardon - I tend to get this way every single time people without the vaguest idea what they are dealing with are given the power to make just incredibly stupid decisions about stuff like this. Sigh. :frowning:

You want an example of racial injustice in public health, this really isn’t it.

A MUCH better one is malaria. Know any Americans who contracted malaria HERE? I doubt it. We pretty much eradicated it here by spreading DDT all over the place. It was later discovered that such massive distribution had negative effects of birds (weakens eggs so they crush before hatching) and they THOUGHT it caused cancer so it was virtually banned worldwide. Turns out it does NOT cause cancer and prudent applications ONLY in villages and human communities would be a fairly safe and VERY effective malaria elimination technique in Africa and other nations that suffer malaria.

But no. We can’t change the public perception that DDT is an evil American chemical that nearly ruined the world, that would be a setback for the “environmental agenda.” So Africans die by the thousands while the best we can do is ship them some mosquito bed nets once in a while.

I’ll bet my hat that if we had a serious outbreak of malaria in the USA the DDT ban would be gone in ONE election cycle. THAT is racial injustice in public health policy.

There are many diseases that, while all races get them to some degree, appear in higher numbers and cause more fatalities in minorities. This is an area where some research is being done, but I don’t know about proportionate funding. Here is a link to a story on WebMD that goes into this issue in some depth - it’s very interesting. Minority health issues often slide under the radar because many of these folks are somewhat economically challenged. They have few champions for their causes, as it were. I am very active in anti-racist social justice work and have done some research on disparities, including a little on heath issues. Again, I am not supporting the decision - I know little or nothing about it. I simply wanted to point out that there are disparaties in this area.

Here is the link to “why 7 deadly diseases strike blacks most”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit