The Lambda Fifth Columns: Part 4 (of 4), Winter 1973

This is the last part of a new series of Fifth Columns featuring my columns from 1971 to 1973 in the Laurentian University student newspaper Lambda, that inspired me to write the Fifth Column many years later. They will be presented here in four parts.

The original print copies have been run through an Optical Character Reader to present them in full text (rather than images) here.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 11#15 1973-01-09)

By Richard W, Woodley (with love)

What is at stake in the current OFS fees withholding campaign is very much a class issue.

What is at stake is the very nature of the university as a class institution, serving a specific class and specific class interests.

The university has traditionally served the upper classes, It is only recently that the sacred portals of higher education have been opened to the middle classes and part of the working class. The higher educational system has never reached the point where it has come to serve the people - the working class.

The limited extent to which the working class has been served by higher education has proved to be too expensive. To eliminate this expense the government has begun a retrograde process aimed at returning the university to its traditional role as the guardian of elite interests.

However, in its hypocrisy, the government has continued to spout the rhetoric of “accessibility”. In an inane attempt to delude the working class, the government has claimed that its recent actions are aimed at making higher education more accessible to the working class, It has also attempted to divide the working class against itself by trying to convince the working class that it is subsidizing a ‘‘bunch of lazy, long-haired, student radicals who are having all night parties at their expense’’.

This is not true. What is true is that education is a social right that should be available to everybody. What is also true is that education, along with other social rights and necessities of life, is not available to everybody. What is also true is that certain sectors of our society have an inexcusable excess of wealth - an excess of wealth that has been gained from the resources of our people and the sweat of the working class.

The reason that the government has felt the necessity to cut back on educational expenses, at the expense of the working class, is because these possessors of wealth in our society hold a privileged position in that society. Their wealth - by the grace of tax credits, forgivable loans, depletion allowances, and other corporate welfare schemes - is not applied to the needs of “the people. Thus the working class must pay the costs necessary to provide its own social necessities while also providing a subsidy to the corporate welfare system.

The Ontario Federation of Labour has realized the reality of the situation, as has NDP Leader David Lewis. Both have given their support to the OFS demands.

What is necessary is a system where the wealth of the people is equally distributed among the people. What is necessary is public ownership of the means of production. Short of this, at least, the replacement of the corporate welfare system by an equitable tax system, which will transfer some of the wealth of the privileged few to the benefit of the many.

Then we will have a system where social rights and necessities can be provided for the masses,

We can then move to full accessibility of education for all. The working classes will be guaranteed the right to higher education by a system of free tuition and living allowances for students.

Only then will the higher education system cease to be the enclave of the elite and come to truly serve the working class.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 11#16 1973-01-16)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

The Ontario Federation of Students fees withholding campaign is doomed to failure - in the short run.

However the reason it is doomed to failure is the very reason that it is essential that it occur. The fees withholding struggle is a struggle to open our educational system to the working class. It is a class struggle. No class struggle can succeed without a class consciousness among the mass of people involved in the struggle. Today, among students, there is no class consciousness.

Among workers there is a class consciousness. They know who the enemy is and they are willing to take steps, and make sacrifices, to fight it. A strike by workers is a class struggle.

Students have no class consciousness. They have no perspective other than the individual and are not willing to make personal sacrifices for a struggle - sacrifices which are necessary if they are to win the struggle.

When workers strike they know that they may never realize their losses in wages back in negotiated benefits, but they realize that the corporations must not be allowed to exploit them for their own ends. They realize that their failure to make sacrifices for the struggle would simply result in their complete subjugation by the corporate system.

Students have no broad perspective of what is going on in terms of class struggle - they only see the effect on them personally. They do not realize that their failure to act, and make sacrifices for the struggle, will simply result in the government doing exactly as it pleases to them and to the educational system - turning it into a class institution, preventing working class students from having any opportunity of obtaining a higher education.

With class consciousness comes solidarity. Strikebreakers are scum - and they should be - they only serve the ends of the corporate system in subjugating the working class., Scabs are lowly people who are ashamed of themselves, ashamed of putting their personal welfare before their brothers, ashamed to face their brothers. Scabs are ostracized and belong neither in the working class nor the upper class.

Workers cherish their solidarity and stand with their brothers despite their personal views. If it was workers who voted 75% to strike, virtually 100% would strike.

This is not so with students. Of Laurentian’s students, 68% voted to withhold fees while only slightly over 50% did. Of those that did not, virtually all did not for personal reasons. With workers such a result is unthinkable, their class consciousness dictates complete solidarity with their brothers. They know that the only way to win any struggle with the class system is in solidarity.

This is why the current struggle is so vital. It provides the means to begin to create a class consciousness among students - a class consciousness which is a necessity if we are to stop the government’s long range plans to convert the educational system into a clear class system, as foreseen by the draft report of the Commission on Post Secondary Education (Ontario).

The campaign and the struggle has had positive results at Laurentian. It has created dialogue. The one to one approach of confronting students as they go to pay their fees has allowed us to explain to them the class basis of what is going on and enabled us to convince them to withhold their fees. It has given us a chance to begin the educational process of developing a class consciousness.

The struggle for the release of OSAP cheques at York and Western, and the resulting victories, have shown students that in solidarity there is strength.

The fifty per cent withholding rate at Laurentian is significant, and higher than most predicted. Still fifty per cent of the students are virtually scabbing on their fellow students, their brothers. They are not, however, true scabs; they have not developed the consciousness to see that the struggle is a class action - they saw withholding their fees as a personal act and made a personal decision. When we develop a class consciousness such an attitude will not be possible.

It is only when we develop a class consciousness and class solidarity among students that we will be able to win the struggle and convert the educational system into a true servant of the working class.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 11#17 1973-01-23)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

Faced by a lack of any form of effective leadership by Laurentian’s habitually inactive SGA hierarchy, students have finally taken direct action in the current struggle with the Ontario government.

The fees withholding was only the first step in what must be a continuing series of actions to make the university and the community aware of the concerns of students and the effects of the government’s policy.

The elevator occupation demonstrated to Senate that students were indeed concerned with the government’s policy of limiting accessibility of education to the upper classes.

Students are not satisfied with Senate’s lack of concern over the government’s actions. Senate nominally deplored the government action, but then went on to raise tuition fees $100. Senate has not taken any effective action to try to put pressure on the provincial government.

Wednesday’s moratorium will bring the issue to the university and the local community and hopefully increase the awareness of all. The issue is not one that only concerns students, it concerns the whole of the community, for it is the children of the workers of Ontario who will be deprived of a higher education by the government’s actions.

Theoretically, it is the Board of Governors who provide a link between the community and the university. However, by virtue of the political nature of appointments to the Board, the Board provides more of a link with the Conservative Party than with the Sudbury community.

Laurentian University is an anomaly among Canadian universities, for if any university can be considered a working class university, Laurentian can. We have the highest percentage of students receiving OSAP assistance in the province, and as such, it is the students, and prospective students of Laurentian University, who will suffer most from the government’s actions.

Sudbury is a working class university, however the Board of Governors of Laurentian University does not represent the community.

The Moratorium Committee has demanded that the Board suspend its regular business this Friday in order to discuss this critical matter with the university community. The committee has also demanded ‘‘that the Board state unequivocally that it does not support the government’s actions and that it will take all action necessary to ensure that Laurentian University becomes a servant of the working class.”

The Board has never shown that it represents the university community. It is up to the university community to make itself heard this Friday.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 11#18 1973-01-30)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

What do we mean when we refer to class domination of our society and our education system?

According to 1970 Department of National Revenue Taxation statistics, 12% of Canada’s total income was received by .0026% of Canada’s taxpayers (those earning over $200,000 annually). A further 19% of taxpayers (those earning between $50,000 and $200,000 annually) received 2.22% of total income. Those earning between $10,000 and $50,000 annually, (13.73% of taxpayers) represented 30.94% of all income, while those earning between $5,000 and $10,000 annually, (40.92% of taxpayers) received 45.2% of all income.

On the bottom, those earning below $5,000 annually represented 45.14% of taxpayers but received only 21.49% of all income.

In simplified terms these figures show what has always been obvious, that the mass of wealth in this country is controlled by a few people, while the majority of people receive very little of the country’s wealth.

What effect does this have on our education system and accessibility of education?

A study of persons between 19 and 24, in Ontario, examined the relationship between parental income levels and attendance at university. Of those whose parents were in the top 20% income bracket, 36% attended university. Of the second 20%, by income, 16% attended university; of the third 20%, by income, 10% attended university; of the fourth 20%, by income, 7% attended university; and of the lowest 20%, by income, 6% attended university. These figures were compiled in 1969 before the tuition increase and the loan ceiling increase to $800.

The indicators are clear - the higher your parents’ income the greater your chances of attending university.

John Porter, in “The Vertical Mosaic”, stated: “By 1960 some governments had taken short steps towards reducing the cost of university education, but the benefits were for the most able students only. The immediate effect of such minor changes was to relieve those classes which traditionally send their children to university or to the classical colleges. These schemes did little to reduce the formidable cost of university education for either middle or lower income families.”

The introduction of the Canada Student Loan plan and the Ontario Student Awards Plan has made no significant change in the situation, as the figures previously cited clearly indicate.

The problem in motivating students to take effective action against the government’s recent moves to further limit accessibility of education, is that the majority of students presently in the universities are not seriously hurt by the actions, only inconvenienced. The people that are hurt are those that are not presently able to attend university because of the financial requirements for admission. This is borne out by the fact that local labour leaders have expressed greater concern over the situation than the majority of Laurentian students.

It is students from working class families that are suffering, not the privileged few that are presently attending university. It is a class struggle!

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 11#19 1973-02-06)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

Where does the student movement go from here?

Lack of enthusiasm by Laurentian students for the struggle with the Ontario government over accessibility of education is apparent. The reason is clear - the struggle is not primarily of concern to those that are here but to those that are not able to attend university.

What role should the SGA take in this current struggle. It must be responsible to its constituents and it must respond to their wishes, but it must also recognize that it is elected to provide leadership.

The SGA should take an active role to make students at university aware that the struggle is theirs also. The nature of the university is at stake. A university community restricted to one class group reflects a limited mentality. Indeed an upper class university serves the needs of the elite and the perpetuation of the status quo. On the other hand a university community comprised of all classes in society provides for an interchange of ideas and values which is healthy for the university. It provides a forum for debate about the nature of society and proposals for social change.

This is what a university is all about – a place for the exchange of ideas and knowledge and the development of ways for changing and improving our society.

The SGA should also attempt to make the working people of the community aware that our aim is not simply to make it easier and less expensive, for students from upper class families to attend university. We should orient our battle not against increases, which apply only to those that can afford to attend university anyway, but against tuition fees themselves, which provide a financial barrier for education for many students from working class families.

We must also make it clear that we want the education system financed by those that possess the wealth of this country (wealth produced by the working class) and not disproportionately by the working class as provided by our present inequitable tax and corporate welfare systems. We must support workers struggles such as the current campaign against strikebreaking.

Union leaders have recognized what the struggle is about but the working class itself has been deluded by the establishment media to believe that the battle is simply being waged by privileged students who want a less expensive privilege. Since we know that is not what the struggle is about it is our responsibility, and the responsibility of working class leaders, to make the community aware.

A student community that is willing to respond to the needs of an educational community must be one that is concerned about the quality of its education. Presently the emphasis of the university system is on the production of degree holders rather than the development of an educational community.

The SGA must do all possible to emphasize the educational and personal development opportunities provided by the unique environment of the university - a place where people who wish to learn and develop are brought together with each other and the facilities necessary for those goals. The SGA must encourage the interchange of ideas and values necessary to a healthy educational community.

This means the SGA must take direct action in the educational field. This can be done by bringing in speakers and sponsoring seminars on current issues, as well as by providing educational material not provided by the university (perhaps by means of an alternate library).

As well it means the encouragement, both in spirit and in finance, of clubs on campus. Clubs are entities which bring people together and as such provide a healthy educational environment. Working together is what clubs should be all about and what university should be all about and what society should be all about.

The development and exchange of ideas is necessary for the improvement of our society (social change). This is what university should be all about and this should be foremost in the philosophy of the SGA.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 11#21 1973-02-20)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

For the last three years the SGA constitution has been the subject of debate. It is accepted as obsolete, but each time proposals are made to change it they fail to succeed, But changes are indeed necessary.

A constitutional committee was established last year and came up with a proposal which would have restructured the SGA along academic lines as well as decentralizing the decision making process so that council members would not simply rubber stamp executive recommendations but would participate in the policy making process through council committees.

At present the roles of the executive are undefined. The president supposedly supervises the execution of SGA policy. The vice-président français has traditionally been responsible for the encouragement of french culture on campus, while the english vice-president’s role has been largely undefined (though in the last two years the english vice-presidents have concerned themselves with the business operations of the SGA).

A more rational policy would be one that would provide for an executive elected to perform specific roles, in conjunction with a committee system.

The president would be a coordinator within the SGA and the representative of the SGA in external matters, as well as having a special role in executing the political policy of the SGA. With a new committee system and the decentralization of power the presidency could possibly revert to a student (rather than a full time position).

The vice-presidents would be replaced by a number of coordinators who would chair council committees in specific policy areas. These committees (rather than the executive) would make policy recommendations to council in their areas of concern.

An educational coordinator would chair a committee responsible for setting up an alternate library and providing educational services to students (e.g. speakers, conferences, etc.). This committee would study which educational areas would be of most concern to students and establish policies to provide educational facilities in these areas,

A social-cultural coordinator would chair a committee responsible for social and cultural affairs. Hopefully such a committee would reorient the SGA social and cultural events to services rather than money-making ventures.

A financial coordinator (treasurer) would chair a finance committee responsible for recommending financial priorities and drawing up a budget for council approval.

Such a committee system would decentralize many of the executives’ functions to the council. Council members would be required to sit on committees and would thus be more familiar with what the SGA is doing than is presently the case. Hopefully under this ‘system council membership would be more than a status symbol and would attract students who are willing and eager to work for the student body at large.

Along with the committee system should come a reorganization of the council along academic lines. As the university, as an educational community, is the major concern of the SGA the composition of council should reflect the academic base of the community.

As well students are much more familiar with the ideas and abilities of those in their academic division, whom they attend classes with, than with those in their colleges, where their only contact, if any, is of a social nature.

Hopefully, then, students voting for council representatives can do so on the basis of ability rather than simply on the basis of “who can chug the most’’.

Along with these basic constitutional changes should come procedures for re- moving executive members from office (by means of referendum) and procedures for policy to be initiated by general student action (again through means of referendum).

This type of reform is necessary if the SGA is to be truly responsible to the students and if it is to truly serve the interests of the student body.

 

For more from Lambda see Laurentian University student newspaper Lambda - Internet Archive