Due to the misinformation and distortion of recent events on this campus and due to the desir’e of many students for more information on the University of Waterloo Act and ‘the Wright Report, the Chevron is publishing a special edition centred on these two, i<$ues and what steps may be taken to deal with them.
On thursday a group of students confronted Burt Matthews that he would not have the U of W act recalled, suggesting upon any action.
at his office in the Modern that since it is now before
Languages building. President Matthews said the legislature, it is up to that body to decide , ..
- U of W*Act:nothing The recent student actions on this campus expressing opposition to the University of Waterloo Act are-not-as it would appear from outside media-whim or spur-of-the-moment games. The Act, which is now before the Ontario legislature, has been six years in the making, during which time students were constantly told they would have their say in committees. After so long a time, it has become clear that the committees were a harmless device to keep students content, and that the Act has gone to Queen’s Park without any discernable student effect in it’s provisions. Actions by students on this campus last week were voicings of a long pent-up frustration at what-appears to have been paternalistic betrayal. Far from containing student wishes, the Act embodies many provisions which insult the status of the student at this university. The result of this Act as it is written will be the continuation of a humiliating parent-child society here. The administrators and faculty will be your parents, and you-because you are a student instead of having chosen another role in life after coming of agewill be their children, at the mercy of their whim.
Since 1967, the Federation of Students has attempted to initiate a discussion with the Act committee on the question of the aims and objectives of a university. In 1968, the minority report submitted stated that the committee struck to investigate new structures for the university never attempted to “search for a definition of the ‘university’.” The majority at that time bluntly refused to even consider it-“there appears to be little need to define precisely who or what we mean by our references to the university as a whole” (University of Waterloo act p.p. 22, 1968 ed).The majority, instead, selected a term ‘community of scholars’ without seeking a definition, then assigned to this vague cliche the status of essential purpose for the university. In 1971 the second minority report was submitted by the Federation. Again it was asked that the aims of the university be discussed and- defined-no response.
During the period from 1967 to the present the act has been significantly changed a number of times. Now in 1972, as the act goes before the private bills committee, the objects of the university have been defined as ‘the pursuit of learning through scholarship, teaching and research within alspirit of free enquiry and expression’. Just what does that mean? The definition of the university has been changed but there has been no discussion on that definition Once again the frustrated response of the students and the objection that must be raised : ‘how is it possible to even atttempt to structure a university before consideration has been given to the fundamental principles on which that’ university is founded?’ It is interesting to note that Burt Matthews - criticized the Wright Commission Report, in the moratorium discussion of last Wednesday, on the grounds that it did not address itself in any way to the question of ‘the quality of education’. Unfortunately, neither does the University Act. Section 15, clause (e) of the Act gives the Board of Governors’ the power “to regulate the conduct of the students, faculty and staff and of all other persons
new
coming upon and using the lands and premises of the University”. This means that a decision could be made by the Board that would make disrupting a class in -process an illegal action, punishable by expulsion. The student could then be punished again through court action by civil authorities. Section 15 (g) which carries on in the same vein, gives the Board the power “to levy and enforce penalties and fines, suspend or expel from student membership or from employment with the University or deny access to the lands and premises of the university.” This, again, creates a situation of double jeopardy under which a person may be penalized both by the university and the civil authorities. The Federation of Students feels that ‘the law of the land’ covers all aspects of conduct within the university with the exception of academic conduct. If the university is to be a democratic institution it cannot legislate rules of conduct beyond those set down by our government. Another objection that should be raised is in regard to Sect. 28 (1) (2), the provision in the act for the B. of G. and the Senate to hold “in camera” sessions (a situation in which access to the meeting is
restricted to ?,voting members, and these members are obligated to keep all d.iscussions of that meeting confidential) to discuss matters of a ‘confidential nature’. This ‘is perhaps one of the most apparent contradictions of the act-the rhetoric of openess used to hide what is actually being said. Just what ‘matters of a confidential nature’ are is left to your imagination and the governors’ discrimination. But the greatest criticism of the Act that can be offered must of necessity be the composition of the B. of G. and the Senate. It is ludicrous to assume that three students out of 36 positions inthe B. of G. have a meaningful say in the decisionmaking process. Furthermore there is the issue of the10 members to be appointed by the lieutenant-governor in council. It is logical (and in keeping with historical reality) that since the lieutenant-governor is only a figurehead he will be acting on the advice of the party in power. It can be concluded that these appointments would probably be political in nature and have nothing in common with the interests of the university. There is also provision for the election to the board by the members, ten members from ‘a broad spectrum of the community’. The present board is by no means a representative cross-section of the community, being, almost without exception, from the upper echelons of the business and professional sector. As a safeguard against this happening again, the composition of the community-atlarge portion of the board should be specified so that representation from a broad segment of the community be insured. Under the composition of the senate, the proposed act gives the students nine out of 67 seats. Due to the terms of reference and powers of the senate, the decisions made by it, will have a very direct effect on students’ lives. Obviously, a significantly greater representation is needed before any real power is held by students on the decisions made by that body. To complicate matters, the faculty represenation on the senate is determined by a formula which specifies that the faculty must hold half of the seats plus one (plus the sevendeans).There is also a subsection which specifies that the senate may from time to time-as they see fit appoint additional ex-\officio voting members to the senate. However, due to the above formula they must also add the equivalent number of faculty. Thus they can effectively dilute what little say students do have whenever they choose. In light of the fact that a unicameral system was approved in principle and studied for six years and yet a bicameral system was adopted within two months on a motion by Burt Matthews (who favored limited student representation from the start) the only possible alternative available is to bring the act back to campus,now and make ,&J-dent parity on bodies which govern students a reality.
.
.
’
,
in the
campus
centre
on
Wednesday
Campus
afternoon.
security
and students
on the fifth
floor
of the library
Wednesday
evening.
Wednesdav, .March 22.... _
The initial impetus for the events of the past few days was the teach-in at the campus centre. A panel discussion and related workshops provided a framework ’ of ideas, with the intent of airing student ,views on the university of Waterloo Act and the Wright commission report. d Mid-way through the afternoon, the panel gave way to workshop discussions which directly led to a motion to occupy the business office, on the fifth floor of the library. The motion was presented to the general body, which at this point numbered over 1,000. The motion passed and action was immediately taken to put the concensus into effect. . Approximately 200 students made their way to the library, and were unimpeded as they occupied the fifth floor. No attempts were made to evict the students, in fact, the policy seemed to be that if they were ignored, they would go away. Well, they didn’t go, at least not until noon on Thursday, at which time they adjourned to the campus centre once more. It is of importance to note that four people were arrested, and charged with petty trespassing. Those .arrests ..seemed . . to contradict Burt’s nonchalant dismissal
2
lll&
t-he chevron
.,,
of the library demonstration. At the campus centre on Thursday, March 23, discussion centred around ways and means to direct further action. Those from the library were joined by others, and at this time the number involved had swollen to close to 400. It is important to note that at no time was the same group involved in the actions. The lines were flexible, and those who left the library to get some sleep were replaced by others’ who had been kept informed of events. The information network was provided by students who volunteered to contact various areas of the campus. The attempt to both inform and involve other students met with some success, although several students met with obvious hostility. The motion to confront Matthews at his office in the Modern Languages building met with approval. It was hoped that a display of concern and solidarity would
Graphics by Tom McDonald, the chevron Photos by the chevron
stimulate Matthews to the point where his somnabulance might succumb to his conscience. Confronted in the Modern Languages foyer by a large group of students, filling both the main floor and balcony, Matthews was questioned on a number of points brought up during the preceding 24 hours. There was little new in what the man said, namely that he would not have the U of W act recalled-suggesting that it is now before the legislature and it is up to that body to decide upon any action The recent opposition to the act by students has not jarred his position, and he maintains -that the Private Bills Committee, meeting Wednesday to look at the act, will decide upon. its course. When questioned about the people arrested he stated that he didn’t know why they were charged. After affirming Wednesday night that he was willing to wait out those in the library as long as they wanted, the reversal of that policy Thursday morning must have been inst iga ted by someone. Al Romenko was unwilling to say anything except his consistent “No comment.” There appeared-to be a lack of communication somewhere,, with the
president not having ‘any knowledge of security action on campus, and the head of security maintaining a stony silence, neither of them claiming responsibility nor disclaiming it. With more than an hour before the senate executive meeting at 3:30 pm, it was decided by those students in the Modern Languages building to face the. faculty on their home ground. Proceeding then to the faculty club, and entering through the ‘back door’ by way of the kitchen, very few faculty members were found to be present. The students conversed with the faculty willing to talk, by far the smaller portion of those present. One faculty member expressed a doubt that most professors “really did ’ know what’s going on”. Statements like: “students want to dictate what they want to learn-without knowing it”, and “have you come to find a way to control your lives or Jearn from
*
other people?” were bandied around by “anonymous” members of the faculty club. Basically there was little real give and take on the issues of student parity, U of W act, Wright report, etc. because of the small number of faculty members there willing to talk. Proceeding next to the Senate executive meeting in the Board and Senate chamber in Engineering 2, the students, by virtue of their overwhelming presence, once again put the whole question of student voice and activity on campus before Burt and his colleagues. The open meeting had been called to discuss the present Integrated Studies crisis, involving both the issue of two students not being granted degrees after passing the examination committee, and the question of the present lack of’a chairman. The executive reportedly having predetermined.not to make any decisions during this meeting, indeed did not. But the comments on the structure and ,, organization of the department, by ’ students from I.S. was given added weight
by the number of students present. There were no verbal disruptions of the meeting and no further questioning on the U of W act put to either Matthew.s or the senate executive. - - At about 4: 30 pm a number of studbnts left the senate executive meeting to participate in a previously and independently organized demonstration at the Inn of the Black Walnut. Joining labour representatives and womens lib people, the group were asking for “Jobs, not handouts!” from Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his government. The Federation of Students meeting that evening addressed itself to the events of the previous 48 hours and the strategy for the upcoming week. A decision was made to call for an “Extraordinary General Meeting” in the campus centre for 1:00 pm Monday. This meeting will be concerned with defining and clarifying the arguments expressed,
against the U of W act and the Wright report. The federation decided to publish a policy statement in the special issue of the chevron, this issue, which w,ill serve as a press release. This statement will in effect lay down the feelings to be aired -and discussed in the meeting at 1:OO pm. The demonstration organized for Queen’s Park by U of T people and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation against educational cutbacks and the Wright report, will be presented to those atteriding Monday’s meeting. The ‘possibility of lending support to this effort, scheduled for Tuesd,ay, march 28, will be raised. Also the possibility of voicing objections on Wednesday, wheh the U of W Act is discussed at Queen’s Park, will be considered.
A concentrat6d effort is also going to be made to contact opposition members of the legislature, inform them of the disagreements with the act as it is being presented now, and pressure for a’tabling of it. This tabling, if passed, would permit further consideration of the act and consolidation of concrete, specific changes to be put forward, with the hope of rectifying the lack of real student participation in the governing bodies of this university, inherent in the existing draft. The closing of the book store early Thursday exemplifies the true reaction of the admmtstratlon to the recent events. A far cry from Matthews’ leave-them-a lone attitude, this action exhibits a concern, verging on paranoia. The events and results of the latter half of last week grew directly out of the open investigation of the whole picture of university education both here at uniwat and across Ontario. The outcome of the week ahead will depend upon the understanding of the issues, to be clarified at Monday’s meeting and the educated reaction to them.
1
....Thursday. March 23 (
.
At Burt
Matthews’
office
on Thursday.
Students
at the
faculty
club
on
Thursday.
Students
at Senate
meeting
late
Thursday
monday
,
afternoon.
27 march
1972
(12:50)
1119
3
‘Chin up, Smedley! salami
onrye,.six
Two ham sandwiches, smoked
meat
with
heavy on the mustard, four dills and on with the revolution!’ -Globe
The Globe and Mail has once again responded to “the usual things” with their “usual metw:. In an edito%al which conjures fond rememberances of\ articles, on the ‘campus center drug craze’, the ‘liberate3 sauna’, for those who can recollect ~the 1968 bomb incident -in Waterloo park, and numerous other travesties in the name of yellow journalism, the Globe has again excelled in using a time-honoured recipe. Pulling old fish heads from their garbage pail of’ misinformation, they have concocted a broth of red, herrings, innuendos, and fabrications. Taking about twenty minutes to’cook it up, the editorial staff started with a slanderouscollection of adhominems from a lead newsstory, added flippancy and rank paternalism towards student affairs, a physical detachment of at least seventy miles and glossing over of the reasons underlying the week’s events. Starting with a thursday newsstory ridden with falsifications, the editorial staff pulled in many erroneous connections. They trivialized the Trudeau demonstration by summing up those present as the ‘rabble of the university’. Present at the demonstration were welfare groups, union workers, unemployed, two w&nen,s liberation groups, as well as students with concerns far beyond the* university community. -. - -- ..- -They obscured the mor%torium and misrepresented-what took place, summing it up as a ‘strike termed a teach-in’. Their fantasy continued by quoting a’ relatively minor statement referring to the burning of the president’s house. It selectively ignored-many of the’bther issues discussed by the students such as the treasury board cutbacks-in education, tuition increases, police on campus, j ‘war research and funding, the Wright report, quality of classroom education at uniwat, Canodianization, the economic situation, and prospects for grad unemployment. Dwelling upon a student-discontent with faculty, the Globe related an insiped description of professors as agents of authority. This argument fails to consider the common interests of faculty and students in dealing with the budget cutbacks -. , and the wright report. Continuing- their trite. innuendo the Globe attempts to deride the sincere concerns of the stud,ents involved and the demands made. Attempting to polarize the situation by referring to the occupiers as a minority of? ‘altogether undue importance’. and implying that other students are content, they mystify the+. *grievances of the student body as a whole. lf.the Giobe is going to seriously raise the issue of numbers meaning im-’ portance,it would be interesting to know how many people on the Globe’s staff’ had a say in what goes into their editorials, or indeed, the paper's Over-all policies. It is interesting to note that many other minorities through out history have been treated’ in much the same manner. . The eulogrzing of the prime minister appears ‘somewhat ludicrous in the face of rising unemployment, rampant inflation, disastrous economic policy and the implementation of the war measures act. The autocratic manner inwhich trudeau handles his party and the government .is hardly an illustration of the sort of solution necessary to answer student problem_s or those of our nation. Students, in fact, are not the first people in Canada to be the brunt of Trudeau’s . glib insults, by which he dismisses real concerns with words and gestures meant to make front pages of papers like the Globe and Mail. Workers, women’s groups, fellow legislators, often the press itself have been sneeringly dismissed by this arrogant leader of the “just society.” The manipulative calouslnessand blatant irresponsibility embodied In sucn ani editorial is indicative of the true lack of concern that people in control of the editorial Policies of such a large, establishment, Liberal newspaper have for the “powerless minorities’.
-
4
and Mail
I
Speaking their- language
’
Courage and, at times, a nice sense of the level of his audience. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau again demonstrated that he possesses these qualities when he emerged into a rabble of University of Waterloo students who mobbed him, insulted him and rocked his car. The Prime Minister simply rested his arms ’ . on the roof of the car and made faces tit. the demonstrators. It was a fitting contribution to the sort of communication in which the students had been involved for the past few days.
They had begun it to protest the usual things by the usual methods-a strike, termed a teach-in. Some teachers were there indeed, including Burt Matthews, president of the University of Waterloo. He heard the interesting suggestion from a student that this house should be burned down, as a token gesture. Other plans discussed were for demonstrations St Queen’s Park on March 28, and in Ottawa on April 13 for, the benefit of President Richard Nixon. What Mr. Nison has to do with the composition of the Waterloo University Senate, or with the Wright Report on Post-Secondary - Education-which are the things the students are supposed to be protestingAremains obscure. ” ,. Nevertheless, the teach-in was unex2 pectedly, even refreshingly, enlightening in some way’s, Consider the true implications of ‘this student complaint: “The faculty is our main enemy. 1 think they are being paid higher salaries so they can step down on us in the classroom. They have sold themselves out so they can wash out student movement in the classroom.“. Disregarding the tone of invective, it . is possible to discern a glimmer of hope . that Waterloo teachers are able to assert some meastire of authori& in their classrooms. The detached observer might believe this to be beneficial, however irksome to some students. . Then there was the young lady who complained that “we are kept so busy studying we can’t get organized”. Kept busy studying? What a quaint no___ tion for a modern Canadian university! _ But there it is, and she said it right out loud. Waterloo is-‘so old-fashioned in its _ outlook that its students don’t have time t.o think seriously1 about how to burn down the president’s house. Such a university really 0ugh.t not to have to be troubled with the very small number of students-only some ZOO-who move from strikes to attempts to rough up the. Prime Minister. Waterloo has 9.200 undergraduate students on campus, 1,300 off campus at the moment doing their stint in industry, 1,200 graduate students and 750 part-time students. In a total of 12,450, these 200 have tried to_ seize an altogether undue importance. Perhaps the Prime Minister who knows so exactly how they should be treated could arrange with his colleague, ’ the Secretary of State, to get them out of Waterloo’s, hair and into more suitable surroundings. With, say, the Opportunities for Youth?
R h
’
darts of the week, eat shit Star. when one has nothing to say one iS wasting newsprinl to say q/thing at all secon’d dart go& to the Record which had- nothing, to say either but attempted to criticize the Globe-.talk about the pot iaIling the kettle black -eat shit too Record
-Globe
and Mail
This issue was produced by the chevron in co-operation with the federation of st
1120
the
chevrbti-‘
‘.
’
.
After recovering from the intense moral shock of reading that the prime minister was called a ‘pig’ (you’ll remember him,, he’s the chap who brought you public arrogance, unemployment, inflation, the War Measures Act, and reduced the House of Commons to a rubber stamp), , we are told that his car was ‘bounced’. Again, perhaps Pitcher was inside at the time: it was a cop car that was ‘bounced’ while Trudeau’s car went untouched. 7
Having launched into the story with a kicker “Mob Scene At Restaurant”, Pitcher further exhibits a deep knowledge of ad hominem argument and slanderous innuendo with the‘ prejudicial statement that Trudeau was “all but mobbed” which is again attributed to “students”. Trudeau was ushered out to his car by a bevy of: plainclothed agents and was at no time in any danger of being mobbed. Does “all but mobbed” mean “not mobbed?”
Globe correspondent Rosemary Pitcher, a local ‘writer’, begins to develop her ‘account’ by linking together and presenting as uniform two separate groups of people: the University of Waterloo students who demonstrated on campus and the group who protested Trudeau’s visit. In classically irresponsible fashion she renders homogenous under the slur-! rubric “University of Waterloo students”. a rather amorphous group composed of : labour council reps, two women’s liberation groups (only one of which was campus based), members of the young socialists, UAW union members, welfare recipients, unemployed workers, people from a co-operative typesetting shop, university professors, as tiell as a conxtingent of students from both universities. n
I
/
I
After another one-way account of the’ violence, Pitcher graphically portrays her ignorance and incompetence as a jour-’ nalist again. Her figure of twelve police is the judgement of a naieve non-participant and can only result from a hasty count of the uniformed officers on duty.‘It neglects the five agents who came in Trudeau’s car and escorted him throughout the visit. It neglects those present from the local RCMP detachment, Pratt and two of his friends, all of whom were identified by demonstrators who had met them personally. It neglects the agent who stood across from the demonstration and made a movie of the entire proceeding. And finally it neglects all of the special agents who adorned the floor of the Valhalla Inn.
who refused to give his name later, the word “pig” was shouted. The crowd pushed around his car and policehad difficulty getting him inside. The car was bounced.Police cruisers ahead of it were unable to movefor several minutes becauseof the crowd. The Prime Minister had Papers were strewn over the cars andsnowballsthrown
/ I
/
They arrived aboutan hour before the Prime Minister.
While we are informed of several events here, we find that Pitcher has not only selectively chosen her facts but has also rather astonishingly duplicated a police sergeant’s interpretation of them. While Rosemary juxtaposes the arrest of John Doe against the plight of the’ police, she does not bother to mention the brutality of the police against those who rushed to make sure that John Doe was not harmed ; nor does she mention the demonstrator who was knocked unconscious while passively resisting the manhandling that occurred-with his arm locked up against the back of his neck by an ‘officer of the law’, so tightly that he
obe and Mail : zad all about )w it wasn’t I
n sum we must indict Pitcher for gross irresponsibility toward the public-no responsible p’aper would allow front page mileage to be made from a second-hand, second-rate, prejudiced writer. It is the essence of Pitcher-reportage to slant and cut till the event is unrecognizable-the account presented in the Globe no more captures the actuality of the demonstration than do the sequential pictures of P.E.T. quaffing his beer, bierdoktor fashion (The Record), capture the reality of our prime minister. Unfortunately, it is the essence of modern newspapers to thrive on, teach and encourage Pitcheresque reporting; it is to be hoped that in the future a paper like the Globe, which self‘ indulgently poses as “Canada’s National Newspaper”, will be recognized for the purposefully dishonest product it is.
/
was wincing from the pain, this ‘friend and protector of the people’ saw fit to ram him into the plate glass window of the candle shop. One begins to gain the impression that Pitcher’s story is a rather hasty and: jaundiced collect ion of other peoples’ impressions of what went on, that in fact ’ Pitcher spent her time inside with the ‘legitimate press’. We are unable to find anyone else present who will corroborate (outside of Pitcher and perhaps some other Globe & Mail, Toronto-based visionaries) the fact that ‘a policeman was knocked to the ground’. We can corroborate, unanimously, that a demonstrator was knocked unconscious. The general character of Pitcher’s story which throughout shows no concern for time sequence, context or bias, emerges \ clearly from the grafting of six paragraphs of reportage about a demonstration at the University of Waterloo that same day on to the other story. Pitcher, posturing as social surgeon, makes a literal transposition of people, issues and feelings from activities which can only be considered separate. In the first place a responsible journalist would never suggest a link between two news events without presenting any evidence for it. Pitcher does, and apparently without qualm; for the average reader, who will assume that the journalist is responsible, the link will appear as if it were real. Rosemary knows little of, or cares little for, her own part in this. 250 people were present at an open meeting of the U of W senate to consider lnteg’rated Studies; two buses later attempted to take any interested people to the Trudeau demoone‘bus, with about 30 on board arrived; the other broke down on route and the people didn’t make it there. From this Pitcher manages to make of it all one and the same demonstration-a fantasy which may be appropriate for her own consumption, but one which does extreme disservice to all those who, un-Pitcherlike, were personally involved. It damages and misuses them in front of the commurr@y and in the eyes of their families, friends and the nation as a whole.
The saga of the soap bubbles, in all its balefull absurdity can only be taken as comic relief, relief which tells us more about Pitcher than about the demon-
now before the Legislature. The act calls for a 112member senate<with 13 student representatives and a 36member board of governors with three studentrepresentatives. The studentswant their representation increased to a . third. They would prefer a unicamera1 (one-body) system like that provided by thenew University of Toronto Act; beginning July 1, but they want more representation. They asked for the unicameralsy& tern as early as 1966. After security guards ushered the studqnts out of the administration building, they held a noon meeting. After that they marched into the office of university president Dr. Burt Matthews. They demanded that the act be changed. Dr. Matthews told them it was out of his handsbecause the first reading hadalready taken place. The demonstrators then marched on theUniversity Faculty Club in search of faculty members. They found only a few. They then jammed into the senate room where an onen senate meeting was be’ing held on integrated studies. They spent about an hour there, expressingoppositionto the act. \ Then they boarded two ‘buses and headed for the Valhalla Inn. -Globe
. Once again we find Pitcher, . the otector of truth and the representative unfettered media, at her yellow best th a report of the twostudents (again) who ‘jumped on one officer’s back’ who’ then ‘fell, injuring a leg’. Again- we must assume either that Pitcher wasn’t there at the time, or that her own fantasies impaired her understanding. We find no corroboration for the claim about students jumping a policeman; we do find (and the Record photograph substantiates it) that a concerned demonstrator attempted to pull a policeman away from the aforementioned injured person, at the moment that he was about to re-apply his arm lock to the still unconscious demonstrator. The only thing injured was the ‘protector’s’ pride, directly attributable to the fact that the ‘assailant’ managed to get away, and that the friends of the injured person dragged him away, saris arrest, in the interim.
-
Ona much more serious note, Pitcher’s one sentence paragraph finds her guilty of just about every basic reporting faux pas possible for a journalist with a whit of principle; presentation out of context resulting in misrepresentation and distortion to the reading audience. What she says is true, lacking only the context in which it arose. At the time, a group of Trudeau watchers in grand regala appeared at a window on the second floor of the Valhalla Inn and, simultaneously, three men appeared on a hotel room balcony. The Trudeau types made some insulting gestures towards the crowd which evoked the stated response: Several moments later the three men made some obscene gestures to one of the young ladies protesting abortion laws to which she retorted : “Lwouldn’t fuck you if , you were the last man on earth”. Of course this type of material wouldn’t interest Pitcher at all-it’s uncomfortably close to what really happened.
and Mail
:nts.
Writers,
reporters,
researchers,
photographers,
artists
were:
Doug
Ing,,
Dave
Cubberley,
John
McGill,
Peter
Warrian,
Dave
Palmer,
Bill
Sheldon,
Joan
Walters’,
John
Keyes,
Dave
Robertson,
monday
Telry
27 march
Moore,
1972
Shirley
(12%)
~~ (tired)
Moore,
-
1121
3
Fall 1968. A joint Senate and Board committee was created under Prof T.A. Brzustowski to study the Batke report and to bring its * recommendations to the Senate and ‘Board of Governors.
September 17, i964 A Joint Commiteee on‘ University Government was created by the .board” and - senate and charged with the preparation of “a comprehensive survey of the present structure of the university of Waterloo; and to examine the, established or accepted procedure involving all parts of the university from the board of governors through to the departments.” There were’no student representatives on this particular committee.
,
March 6, 1969 s The joint committtee reported to a joint meeting of the Senate and Board of Governors, and approval in principal was -given by these bodies to the establishment of a unicameral governing structure. A University Act Committee was set up with T.L. Batke as chairman.ft had eleven members. two of whom were students. ’ . tJuly 17, 1969 The draft of the act for a unicameral structure was ready for the Board and Senate meeting in October. The draft proposed that the Governing Council have 64 me-mbers, (two of whom were non-voting), including 13 students and 22 faculty.
\
.-
I
.
March 24, 1966 Preliminary report of the Joint Committee on University Government. I April, 1966 Committee . on University Governing approved by the senate and forwarded to Board of Governors for approval.
on University briefs from
Governinterested
.. May 1967 A brief submitted by the federation .of ’ students detailed student wishes for a unicameral structure and student ‘participation from the department level up. : The federationasked the committtee to deal in part with the following: . - a definition of the university - concept of a university - -meaningful student paricipation The federation felt that unicameralism was the’ most acceptable structure because academic and financial decisions Lace inextricably bound together. I
I
November 2, 1967 An open letter was sent to all members of the Committee on University Government by* the. three student represen. tatives, expressing great disappointment ‘: with the attitude of the other members of the committee, the high absentee rate, the 1 chairman’s attempts to discourage questions from them, the manner in which ‘discussions took place,and the rejection of the motion to hold open meetings of the committee. ’
, ”
.
December 11, 1967’ A subcommittee of I- the Governing \ Structures Committee was created, I having one student out of seven members. ’ It’s terms of reference were “to prepare a .paper on the.structure of university ’ government for the University of Waterloo with particular emphasis on the question . , of single versus two-tier forms.” .
I’
October -15, 1968 The, Committee. on the Study of University Government, with T.L. Batke as chairman, produced a report favouring a revised bicameral structure, moving towards a unicameral structure in perhaps five years. October -18, i968 ’ The student members committee published Minority Report, _, ,-
of the Batke a Federation
c October 21,’ 1968 At i general meeting the Federation .of -_- - - .Students rejected the Batke report and accepted instead the Federation Minority Report which favoured unicameralism. . Larry Burke, Dave:Peitz, Gord Moore, &try
1122
the‘ch&fob
,’
.
1’.
,
April 3, 19?1 - The Act commjttee voted in favour of a motion that no deans sit as, ex-officio members of the governing council. \
Hayes;-LukeAujame, Al Lukachko, Tom MacDonald, George Kaufman, Barbara Kiteley, Steve Monier-Wiliiams, John f-looker, Dave Villeneu\ie, Krista Tomon/, Dudley Paul, BGrtie, ‘
‘..
*_-
, -c
/ /
/’
He then went on to outline the by-laws: (1): the by-laws of the Board should provide for (a) six faculty members named by the Senate from among its members. (b) three students named by the Senate from among its members. (c) two staff members elected by and ’ ‘. ’ from the staff. (2) The by-laws of the Senate should provide for (a) three %faculty -members elect.ed by and from the teaching ‘faculty of each faculty, school of the University, or College (b) one undergraduate student elected by and from the undergraduate student body of each faculty and school of the University (c) one graduate student elected by and from the graduate student body (d)‘three alumni elected by and from the alumni of tl?e University
The joint meeting then voted to reject September 9, ‘1971 the principle of unicameralism and noted Lynn Watt, Act Committee chairman, that it favoured a revised bicameral form made an ‘opening address to a joint, Board of government. They then set up a 10 man October 20,# 1969 and Senatemeeting, outlining the major ’ University Act Committee. with 3 student At the Board meeting it was claimed philosophy -dealing with the principle of representatives to act under the terms of that more time was needed to discuss the university government. He then stated reference laid out by Burt Matthews Act, and the possibility of up to a year’s that if the university was setting wise above. , delay was discussed. goals and if these goals could be achieved through unicameralism, he felt that one November 9, 1971 Fall-Winter 1969-70 __ must determine whether they can be The University Act Committee reported I During this period the Act committee achieved through any other form of to the Senate with the revised bicameral drafted the by-laws and considered the university structure. He then suggested act. The Senate accepted the Act. various suggestions contained in briefs that they could be achieved through presented to the committeee. revised bicameralism. I November 23, 1971 .NOTE: Revised bicameralism was The University Act Committee reported I June 1970 never discussed as an alternative in any to the Board of Governors, whocaccepted Sections of the proposed unicameral act university act committee meeting after the Act. , were printed in the chevron. At this point March 1969 when the Board and Senate the Governing Council was to consist of January 1972 ’ approved the principle of unicameral 71 voting members: The University of Waterloo Act was government and appointed the University - 20 ex-,officio members (president, forwarded to the Legislature. Act Committee to bring -forth a report. deans, chancellor, etc.) - 17 faculty members Burt Matthews then spoke and noted March 8, 1972’ - 13 full-time students that the Act committee had not ~discussed Lynn Watt was appointed ‘Dean ‘of T 2-fult-time staff the bicameral structure. He “sensed a Graduate Studies. -14 members of the community-at-large (questioning by many people” of the ad- 5 alumni visabiility of proceeding to a unicameral March 15, 1972 week ’ system. First reading of the Act in the July 1, 1970 At that point he proposed the following Legislature, Burt Matthews, former university of structure: Guelph vice-president academic becomes 1. The board shall -number thirty-six March 29, 1972 administration president members in all and shall-consisit of the Act b.efore the private bills committee. following: September 3d, 1970 Introduction by Ed Good, M.L.A. Waterloo. (a) The President of the University, th,e The unicameral draft act as of Sep; Chancellor of the University, the Mayor of tember 21, 1970 was published in the the City of Waterloo, the Mayor of the City Gazette for general. distribution and of Kitchener, and’the Warden,of Waterloo ’ comment. The representative numbers on County, who shall be ex-officio members the Governing Council were substantially . with full vot!ing rights. unchanged since June 1970. , (b) The present members of the Board of The proposed structure of the Board Governorsof the University of Waterloo. October 30, 1970 of Governors andthe Senate in the’U. (c) Two members appointed by the j The Act Committee indicated in the of W. Act is as follows -Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Chevron that it was ready to accept briefs (d) That not fmore than twelve members on the proposed act. At this time Lynn BOARD OF GOVERNORS may be from the faculty, students or staff Watt was chairman of the committee. 1. five voting ex-officio members of the University or its federated or af-‘ filiated colleges. 2. ten members appointed by the November, 1970 2. There ‘shall be a Senate of 1 the Lieutenant-Governor in council The Faculty Association presented a University composed as follows: A 3. six faculty . brief to the Act committee asking for a 49 (a) The following shall be ex-officio 4. three students--one graduate member governing council, with positions members for 16 faculty, 8 students and 2 staff, thus two undergrads * (i) The Chancellor ’ providing a majority for faculty, students 5. two members of full time staff (ii) The Vice Chancellor and.staff. They also asked for a reduction 6. ten members of the community at (‘iii) the Academic Vice-President from the proposed 17 ex-officio members ’ large (iv) The Vice-President, Finance and to 6, which would exclude the deans from \ total 36 Operations a guaranteed position& the council, and (v) the dean of each faculty or school , thereby forcing deans to vie equally with of the University ; SENATE other faculty for faculty seats on the _- (vi) the principal or ‘head of each 1. eighteen voting ex-officio Governing Counci,l, thereby’making them federated or affiliated college . . 2; three members of the board of Gov. responsible to their faculty. (vii) the dean of Graduate Studies elected from the community at large Of (viii) the Librarian . December’9, 1970 ’ members. . . (ix) the Chairman of the Board of The Staff Association -presented a brief 3. thirty-four faculty members f% Governors .proposing a cut in the Governing Council 4. six undergrads (x) the Registrar from 65 to 39, giving 7 seats each for 5. three grads (b) Not less than two members from the students, faculty and outside members. 6. three alumni teaching staff of each faculty and school of They also proposed that Deans by nonTbTAL 67 (not school within a voting ex-officio members of the ‘- the University faculty) and each affiliated or federated Governing Council. P The total membership -of the comcollege, and two members elected by and from’ the non-University members of the bined boards is 103. The combined Board of Governors., grad and undeygrad membership is (c) such other members as the Senate 1 12. ’ may determine by by-law.
October, 1966 The board of governors approved the striking of the Committee on University I Government. The committee was _ to report and bring forth any desirable reforms concerning the existing structure of government at the university of Waterloo. A total of 26 members three of which were students (one a grad) comprised the committee. February lb67 The, Committee ment ’ requested parties. .
January 1971 The Federation of Students presented a ’ brief to the Act committee which: ’ - proposed‘a Governing Council of 49 members - proposed that the deans should not sit on the council unless elected by faculty - ‘asked for the deletion of clause alluding to “double jeopardy” and “in camera” sess.ions - asked-for a reduction in the number of administrative officers sitting on the committees of the Council in order to mak.e the governing structures more democratic. - asked for abolitionof honorary degrees .
I
’
I
The WrkKeport
I
1t
:
‘This so called draft report-two years in preparation, at a cost of $1.3 million to the public is such a compendium of redherrings, paradoxes, and inconsistencies that we cannot believe even the government taking it seriously, except as political propaganda. ’ It proposes making education more widely available and at the same time raises fees. It decries bureaucracy and at the same time it would create more government committees with tighter controls. The report is all for diversity and decentralization, at the same time recommending that all educational and cultural institutions in the province be brought under one governemnt department. The Wright Commission Report states: “Education must be viewed as a humanizingforce that is central to our civilization and to th-e individual members of our society. We are also talking about a post-secondary education system...which responds to the diversity of individual needs and wants. First, education must be mancentered...all facets of the post-secondary education system should be oriented towards serving individual students rather than the institutions themselves, future employers, or the professions. We must never forget that education is learning; that learning cannot but be, untimately, a highly individual matter.
a chaos of contradictions /
Bicameralism
Unicameralism A unicameral structure provides for the union of the financial and academic functions of the university on one single governing body. Central to the theory of unicameralism is that the financial and academic functions of the institutions cannot. be separated, if competent, well-reasoned decisions are to take place.
.fed e rat 0 policy statement The Wright report, which was released in january, in conjunction with the Ontario government treasury board report is an attempt to decrease post-secondary education accessability by raising fees up to 200 percent and limiting grants. This would have the effect of, eliminating 16,000 freshmen in ‘72~‘73 and 46,000 undergrads‘by 1975. In addition 8000 ‘grad students would be prevented from attending university by 1975. Implementation of these recommendations would give the government complete control over programs and finances iii post-secondary education. This would make university government virtually powerless. Meanwhile before the Ontario legislature is a bill on the verge of creating a new university of Waterloo act. It would provide for a revised bi-camera1 structure composed.of a board of governors and a senate.
Bicameralism provides for a two-tier governing structure usually a Senate and a Board of Governors. The Senate handles the academic matters and is advisory to the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors handles the overall financial management and has final dicision making powers on all matters. Bicameralism provides for the artificial separation of academic and financial functions of the institution.
The two bodies would have token student representation-12 out of ‘103 appointed by the governing bodies. The act contains provision for in camera sessions and vestiges of in loco parentis. Students convicted of a criminal offense can at the same time be expelled from the university. There is no mention of student representation in the formation of academic policy at the faculty and departmental levels. Because of the profound negative .effects the Wright commission will have on students, patticularly in its financial policies, the federation of students feels it must state its emphatic opposition to the report Concerning the university of Waterloo act before the legislature the federation of students demands that the act be brought back to campus for discussion and, revision. The federation strongly urges its members to demonstrate against education cutbacks at Queen’s Park on tuesday march 28 at 4:30 pm in conjunction with high school students and teachers and students from other universities across Ontario. ‘It also invites all its members to join the delegation of federation executives at the private bills committee (main parliament building committee room no. 1) at lo:30 am on Wednesday march 29, in Queen’s Park.
DeaT,,WatJ-and :,““.i,., , 7 8, Al Romenco (administration correspondents),
Second, if the individual is at the center, he must have the opportunity and responsibility to decide what educational experiences are good for him. We have formulated a set of principles by,which we believe these goals should be accomplished in our society; our recommendations, as well as our criticisms, are based on these principles...universal accessability, openness, diversity, flexibility, transferability, and public accountability.” These recommendations are in direct contradiction to proposals put forth by the Treasury Department. The, Wright Commission states, on the one hand, that the primary objective of post-secondary education is to increase the general education level of the population. The Treasury Report, however, is designed to have education provide Manpower Training, and maintain the balance of supply and demand in the labour market. InNovember, 1970, the Treasury Board presented a report on post-secondary education to the Policies and Priorities Board of the Cabinet. The principal, concern of this report was with money, not education. f Also of sp,ecial interest in the Treasury Report: “In summary, and with our best estimate of what each would save, these possible economies include‘limited fulltime enrolment,down by 46,000 students ($84 m’illion) ; ‘limited graduate enrolment,, down by 8,000 students ($58 million) ; ‘reduce grant aid’ ($?); ‘eliminate teacher education awards’, ($2 million); ‘increase tuition fees’, up to 200 percent ($102 million) ; ‘limit public support for post-secondary education’ to 3 years only ($350 million) and or revise the basic income unit (per student) payable to his or her university ($435 million). This saving of approximately $1 billion dollars would be achieved by reducing the number of students attending post-secondary institutions, and -making the students who do attend pay more, while at the same time reducing funds available to them. This policy was put foreward without any consultation with those whom it directly affects: the universities, the colleges, the public, the students, and the Committee on University, Affairs,. which was supposed to act as a buffer between the universities and the province. The Treasury Board justifies it’s proposals by stating “Limited enrolment will mainly affect those students entering the system who are least employable of the 18-24 age group. In terms of the 1972-73 projection, this will reduce the freshmen intake by 16,QOO, and may result in a substantial shift to part-time education. (By 1975-76 this would mean denying full-time postsecondary education to 46,000 qualified . applicants.)” The Treasury Board defines these 46,000 persons as being the “(east employable” but denies them access to any form of job training that they ‘might’ receive at the poet-secondary level. These people will not be educated, nor will they be employable-in the end they may be forced into a part-time education or onto welfare. The Wright Report, in turn,,states that “Increasing the loan portion (of student grants) wiII discourage poorly motivated students....itwiII also affect students from lower income groups unless a contingent repayment feature is introduced....it will also affect students from lower income groups unless a contingent repayment feature is introduced...in general, a substantial fee increase would tend to act as a substantial deterrent and cause a shift to further part-time study.” In short, the Treasury department holds the purse strings, and although the Wright report espouses a philosophy of universal accessibility and openness, in its actual recommendations the commission blatantly tows the line. De-emphasizing un,dergraduate nonprofessional courses by reducing weighting would force universities either to reduce enrollment in these courses or selectively raise fees thus putting pressure on for reduced enrolment”.
Three Feathers, Kon Tiki, our friends the Ducks, the greasy plastic vtiltures
from
your
friendly
Costs are the implicit factors to which we must address ourselves at this time. Students coming from families with incomes of less then $7,500 per year will have f.ree tuition for a period of three years. (Traditionally this is a small percentage of the student population.) Students with family incomes between $7,500 and- $10,000 will pay on a sliding scale at up to 50 percent of the cost of post-secondary education. Also indicated is that undergrad arts and science fees will go up ‘50 percent, engineering fees about ‘125 percent and grad tuition fees about 350 percent. Moreover unlike the present system, students will pay interest on it from the time it is taken out.
’ ’
Repayment is projected as an extra percent on personal income tax per year for fifteen years. The Wright Commission justifies the increase in tuition by pointing to the potential salaries of graduates, yet nowhere is there a’ guarantee of any return on our investment. The commission. embarasses us by talking only in terms of dollars, entirely neglecting the issue of education per se, or the quality within post-secondary institutions. In contrast to the Wright’ report, our goals should be: 0 opposition to any tuition raises; 0 an aim to eliminate tuition fees altogether; *an increase of the total facilities in order to accomodate more students. For some time, certainly in Ontario throughout the sixties, the government has had a significant hand in educational planning; as the report documents, government spending shot from about 39 million dollars per year in 1961 to 544 million dollars in 1971. The government is now, with a flourish of rhetoric about community involvement, going to take direct control. For the first time, they will be able to start, stop and abandon programs directly, or at least through the quasidemocratic means of boards appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in-Council. This will be democratic in the manner of people’s Liquor, Control Board, Water Resources Commission or Ontario Hydro. In this case, with students paying 50 percent of their education, it should follow that they have equal say in how the university is run and what their curriculum will be. Let us examine the supersturcture we will be forced to deal with as soon as Mr. Wright begins to impliment his own report. (Unheard of-a chairman of a commission is empowered to make his ideas into law.) In light of this’framework it becomes imperative that the entire report be revamped. All student participation in any university governing structure will be negligible since we lack an effective voice in the upper levels of educational decision making. Both the Co-ordinating Board for Universities (II) and the Senior Advisory Committee (I) are structured in the same manner. Each has 13 members, 6 from the public sector, 6 from administrative, faculty, students and sta,ff, plus the Deputy Minister of the Dept. of Colleges. There is no provision within these recommendations to guarantee-one seat to students on the governing bodies. -At the moment we are attempting to revise the U of W Act so that the students will have equal representation on the governing bodies of University of Waterloo. But let us not work in a vacuum, for this university will merely become an appendage of the state. Thus we may find ourselves with equal representation on the Senate and Board of Governors but how meaningful can this be when we are given no representation within the proposed superstructure. The opposition must continue at the local level so that we can become partners in this corporation (U of W), and must demand that the partnership guarantee parity on all decision making bodies which effect our lives.
finger lickers with a little help frpm Kilaloe Thunderfucker.
monday 27 march 1972 :CG?.:.!%) -1123
7
.
participate
-
. ~. _
Thanks to the Globe a_ndMail for some of t’he copy. We certainly were hard pressed. Thought for this issue: Smash the state. Remember the old days when the lines were clear-cut. Noneof this waiting game shit. al. ‘8
11&a
ith
qg$&&@i;l
’
c