The schizos probably think there's a tracking trace element in their drugs.

I encourage you to share this with the Concordia administration, if you haven't already.

I saw a short segment about this on television and decided to inform myself.

My nephew was thinking of attending Concordia but after I learned of their allowing this cult on their property I spoke to his parents and he will not be going to Concordia. That's right Concordia, it is parents who pay the fees for their children to attend your school and when we learn that you do nothing to check into the background or the claims of those wishing to rent your space you can believe that we won't trust you to look after our children. You owe your students a duty of care.
Our young men and women may rant and rave that they are adult enough to make their own decisions but it is the parents who sign the cheques. Who is next? The Moonies, Children of God? I belong to numerous parent/social justice groups and spent my Sunday evening informing them about this. Shame on you Concordia for taking money from a criminally convicted cult.

My concerns:

We should be focusing on academic accountability and noting that admins have a responsibility to preview material to be exhibited before students are exposed to it.

IF someone approved the exhibit before it went up, then that someone has to account for the lack of due diligence done in examining and verifying claims made by that exhibit, and whether its content was appropriate.

IF no one approved the exhibit beforehand, I'd be seriously concerned about this, as well. Is this a "they paid, so they get to proselytize to our student body" issue, someone not taking responsibility for the information students come into contact with, or what?

I'm wondering if Flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers, Intelligent Design proponents, Holocaust Deniers, Creationists, etc., would be allowed to hold exhibits at this uni without an academic review beforehand. Who vetted this exhibit? How much money did Scientology donate in order to have this platform with which to spread false information and propaganda? Regardless of whether or not a religion / charity supports an exhibit, why did no one, apparently, ask to review the claims being made beforehand?

It is, in essence, absolutely irrelevant from an academic value standpoint whether a religion / charity or Scientology ( a cult masquerading as a religion / charity) backed the exhibit: what is relevant is that the exhibit promotes a lot of false statistics, scaremongering via disturbing images, unsupported claims, hypocritical comments (much of what is said in the exhibit directly contradicts what their Glorious Leader L. Ron Hubbard wrote) and it apparently rejects a legitimate, neutral party, peer-review process or equal time for counterpoints / discussion.

The university has offered Scientology's CCHR front group a soapbox where they can say whatever they like without any attempt to verify accuracy, truthfulness, legitimacy, etc., and they have failed to (apparently) preview these claims or offer critics equal time and space to set up debate or discussion of the cult's claims. This is appalling.

And, yes, I second the observation that the assumption is probably being made, here, that an exhibit at a university HAS been rigorously previewed and vetted beforehand. I would not blame any student for assuming that the information had academic credentials and verification, given the setting of the exhibit. I do not, for one minute, believe this is accidental: Scientology aligns itself with celebrities, manufactures its own "credentials" ("doctors," etc., cited in, for example, their Narconon propaganda are Scientologists, and thus hardly unbiased commentators), and likes to set up their CCHR exhibits in government and academic surroundings, as those arenas lend the CCHR exhibits an air of unearned legitimacy.

http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=dc4df633-0ff1-4506-b292-dd8ab13bfb0d

Here is a judgment that confirms their criminal organization status: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1995/1995rcs2-1130/1995rcs2-1130.html

Please note that it’s not from a little obscure kangaroo court either.

Some 20 years ago, they also have been convicted of infiltrating the Ontario Ministry of Justice to destroy legal files regarding L. R. Hubbard and the “church” of scientology.

"The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda."

— L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL of 5 October 1971, "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words"

So, in essence, Concordia University is letting itself being used by a Scientology front as a tool for Scientology's religious agenda.

Supposedly, according to her, CCHR is a humanitarian organization not affiliated (anymore, anyways) with the church and there's no correlation between being a member of Scientology and working for the CCHR.

She also mentioned that they were a traveling group going to universities and crossing the country, and that they were from Toronto. I gave her a fake name and told her about some drugs I had been prescribed (for sleeping problems) she gave me a Canadian Government vigilance form to fill out, and the name of one of the leaders of CCHR in Montreal on a business card.

I walked away from the exhibit feeling like she was trying to brainwash me. The whole thing reeked of bullshit anyway. I'm really grateful for the pamphlet one Anonymous member handed me. Scientology is basically all psuedoscience anyway, and this CCHR stuff doesn't seem any different.

See this video for actual proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWIy50OqFCs

And this is nothing. Ex-Scientologists are now suing the cult left and right for human traffic, child labor and coerced abortions. You can lean more about that here: http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2009/04/14-laura-decrescenzos-lawsuit.html

Scientology has also been criminally convicted in 1996 for infiltrating the Toronto Police, the RCMP and other medical organizations in Ontario. Source here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1996/1996canlii1650/1996canlii1650.html

The university has NO IDEA who they are dealing with. And Anonymous' job is to remind them, because we can, and because we are internets superheroes mostly.

The same is true of exhibits. The administration has a crucial gatekeeping function: it must decide who--whether students, faculty, or members of the public--can participate in university life. It is not only permissible, but indeed necessary, that it deny certain people the right to participate. The criteria for this decision are fairly straightforward: people must live up to certain academic standards.

If no faculty members or student groups invited the Scientologists on campus, the university was perfectly within its rights to deny them space. But what makes this turn of events truly embarrassing for Concordia is that administrators--and I truly believe this is the case--are so intellectually impoverished that they can't distinguish between serious academic research and the half-baked ideas of the CCHR. They obviously couldn't see how or why this exhibit might be controversial. This isn't a question of academic freedom; it's one of managerial incompetence.