Bonus – The Lambda Editorials

In addition to writing the Fifth Column during my time on the Laurentian University student newspaper, Lambda, I was also news editor and was occasionally asked to write the editorials. Below are those editorials, as well as an analysis article and a book review.

 

Opinion (1970-10-22)

Richard W.

The civil rights of the Canadian people have been suspended! This is due to the action of the Trudeau government in invoking the War Measures Act. This is an unjustifiable action.

Prisons in Quebec are now being filled with political prisoners. Hundreds of Quebecois are being persecuted for their political views. The F.L.Q. (Fronte de Liberation Quebecois) has been declared an unlawful organization and there ‘s a five year jail term provided for:

a person who

(a) is or professes to be a member of the unlawful organization.

(b) acts or professes to act as an officer of the unlawful organization.

(c) communicates statements on behalf of or as a representative of the unlawful organization,

(d) advocates or promotes the unlawful acts, aims, principles or policies of the unlawful organization.

(e) contributes anything as dues or otherwise to the unlawful organization or to anyone for the benefit of the unlawful organization.

(f) solicits subscriptions or contributions for the unlawful organization or

(g) advocates, promotes or engages in the use of force or the commission of criminal offences as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.

In one rash act of totalitarianism the government has eliminated the basic freedoms of association, assembly, expression and thought.

The government has made membership in a political organization a crime and the holding of “undesirable” political views a crime.

Regardless of the policies of the F.L.Q. they should not be subject to the violation of their civil rights. Neither should other separatist groups. Neither should the Canadian people,

All members of the F.L.Q. have been declared criminals, regardless of whether they have committed any criminal acts. Hundreds of Quebecois have had their civil rights violated simply because they express the same aim as the F.L.Q. - an independent socialist Quebec, They do not necessarily believe in the use of violence to obtain that objective.

However, since some members of the F.L.Q. have been involved in terrorist activities, and since the aim of the F.L.Q. is the same as that of other separatist groups, all separatists have become suspect. Because of this they have had their civil rights violated in a manner never before seen in Canada. In a manner contrary to the principles of “justice” which our government supposedly believes in and claims to practice.

The government says that its action is necessary to protect the freedom of the people of Canada.

However it has been said that if one citizen has his freedom violated all the people lose their freedom.

We are now in a position where the freedom of all the people of Canada is subject to violation; and in fact the freedom of the Canadian people has been lost!

 

EDITORIAL (1972-02-29)

By Richard W. Woodley

There are a number of questions that you should ask yourself before voting on the proposed new constitution. A constitution is a philosophy. The philosophy behind the proposed constitution consists of a number of principles. These are:

(1) Decentralization, and a committee system to lessen the executive’s power,

(2) Representation according to academic division,

(3) An executive based on function,

(4) A bilingual SGA (however without language representation on the council),

(5) A free student press,

If you agree with these principles then you should vote for the proposed constitution. Probably few will agree with every clause in it, but that will never happen. No one will come up with the perfect constitution agreeable to every student.

The basic principles behind the constitution are the important things. If you cannot agree with them you cannot agree with the constitution. But if you do agree with these principles then you should vote for the constitution. Amendments to details can be made later.

The point is that if people vote against the constitution because they do not agree with every single clause in it, it probably wouldn’t receive any votes. Or, if people voted for it because they agreed with only one clause, it would probably pass unanimously.

What you are voting on are the principles behind the constitution.

As well one should consider what a defeat would mean. It would mean that we would still continue to operate under the old constitution, which everyone must agree is archaic. The new constitution is a definite improvement and hopefully it will be improved in the future.

But it is a start. A new philosophy of decentralization. A point to begin in making the SGA truly relevant to the student body. It will only be as good as the students make it.

But the SGA cannot move forward under the old constitution. It is imperative that students approve the proposed constitution.

Two-thirds of at least fifty per cent of the student body must vote in favour of the proposed constitution for it to be ratified.

It is your SGA! Your future! Your choice!

 

EDITORIAL (1972-03-21)

By Richard W. Woodley

Mysterious happenings have occurred in and around the SGA this year, centring to a great extent around the business operations of the organization and the dismissal of Frank Reynolds, former SGA business manager.

A number of questions and charges have been raised by some students and an organization calling themselves the Students for a Democratic Laurentian (SDL).

This organization, and its charges, we first tended to dismiss as a political front used by Mr, Reynolds for his own political purposes, A number of their charges directly contradicted the SGA Executive, whom we tended to give more credibility to than the SDL. Many were quite strong. Many were misleading, And many we felt to be incorrect or unjustified.

Yet, upon talking with people in SDL and having the other view, along with a number of interesting facts and recollections, brought to our attention we began to question.

We can no longer dismiss the SDL as a small group of people out for their own political ends using whatever tactics possible.

We no longer know who to trust. We know that the SGA has not been open. We begin to feel that they have lost a certain amount of credibility. And they have, And that is the most unfortunate thing of all.

There is a new executive and a new Council now, They must decide whether they will be open with the students, They must let the students know what they are doing and why they are doing it. There must be no room for doubt.

They cannot count on the students’ faith and trust in them to remain, no matter what, They cannot count on absolute trust, for this is what the past executive and council expected from us. We no longer have that absolute trust in them, We question their actions.

The new Council and Executive must not let this happen. For if it loses credibility the whole SGA will be placed in jeopardy.

It is up to them to decide how they will run their affairs, but we will be watching them much closer than we have in the past, We have learned from this year, and we have our friends, who we thought were our enemies, to thank.

 

editorial (1972-10-03)

(by rww, authorship not attributed)

A free press is essential to a free people. True freedom of the press, however, involves more than an absence of controls by outside interests. It means all must have access to a press. It means that the press must not be solely in the hands of the establishment, as the bourgeois press of this country is.

The student press in Canada prides itself in having this freedom to present all the views of the student population, without editorial or financial control, even if these views oppose the official student government. They pride themselves in being guaranteed the ability to do this by being financed by the student governments they may, themselves, oppose.

The Statement of Principles of the Student Press in Canada (Canadian University Press) to which Lambda adheres, guarantees to the student press the non-interference of student governments in the editorial, advertising, and financial policies of the student press.

The Students’ General Association of Laurentian University has seen the need for such guarantees and has made constitutional provisions to guarantee the freedom of Laurentian’s student press.

The Lambda Publications Brief (A Bylaw to the SGA Constitution) provides that the editor may be removed only by a referendum of the student body.

The Brief also guarantees Lambda a minimum SGA grant of $3.00 per student ($5,850) as well as all revenue from advertising in Lambda. The Brief also states that this revenue, from student fees, will be paid directly to Lambda Publications and that any surplus incurred by Lambda shall be used by Lambda for the purchase of equipment.

However, despite the constitutional provision of such financial guarantees, the present SGA Council has disregarded the constitution.

The SGA Council has passed a budget limiting the Lambda grant to $3,900 ($1,950 below the constitutional guarantee) as well as limiting the amount of advertising revenue Lambda may receive to $3,100 and at the same time putting the uncollected Lambda advertising revenue into the general SGA budget (rather than allocating it to Lambda for equipment purchases as provided in the constitution).

These are not “trifles”, as Yvon Lachappelle calls them, but are a flagrant interference with the freedom of the student press on this campus. These guarantees are provided to ensure that the student press can operate without financial pressure from a student government, that it may often be critical of.

The effect of the SGA’s disregard for these guarantees will mean that the quality of the paper (and possibly its ability to be critical) will suffer and that it will possibly be forced to cease publishing before the end of the year.

The SGA, or rather Yvon Lachappelle, claims that it is acting in the students’ interests. But how can the SGA be impartial in limiting the freedom of a press that is, at this time, highly critical of it.

A Constitution is a set of rules set up to ensure that those with power within an organization serve the wishes and interests of the members of that organization, When the SGA Council ceases to follow the Constitution they lose all legitimacy and cease to be responsible to the student body as a whole, When this happens all hell should break loose!

 

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT (1973-10-09)

By Richard W. Woodley

Northern development is a concept that is coming under increasing discussion. It is seen by many as the natural fulfillment of the Canadian dream (and by others as necessary to serve the needs of a North American, i.e. Amerikan, community).

It is referred to in terms of bringing the resources and beauty of the great Canadian northland to all Canadians.

The reality, of course (as with most aspects of Capitalism), is the opposite.

What the development of the north refers to, in actuality, is the transformation of the north from serving the needs of the people of the north to serving the needs of the Amerikan dominated corporate elite of this colonial state.

It means the radical transformation of the ecology from one which served the needs of a northern community based on hunting and fishing, to one which simply serves the needs of southern industry. It means the alienation of the people of the north, with the subsequent economic and social problems which occur as a civilization, hundreds of years old, attempts to adapt to changes imposed from the outside.

The answer to this problem is provided by assimilation - and the dominant southern culture prides itself in its few successes in assimilating northern natives through educational and industrial training programs imposed from the outside.

These programs. and their resulting assimilation of the native population into the southern culture, would, of course, be unnecessary if the northern people were allowed to keep their own culture, A culture far superior to the southern culture, a non-alienated culture based on people helping people (not on the southern god of economic and industrial development).

The examples are numerous: The James Bay power development in northern Québec will flood huge areas of northern Québec, forcing the population out of their homes and altering the ecology in a way that could destroy their way of life forever.

The Mackenzie Highway, which is being fought by the northern natives, will bring more southern-type development to the north, forcing native peoples from their traditional way of life to a culture based on alienating work in factories.

This form of industrial development has its critics - mainly among northern natives and environmentalists.

Less criticism has been aimed at the development of the north from tourism. Perhaps because plans for this sort of development are not as extensive or advanced as those concerning industrial development. However, suggestions have been made that tourism be developed extensively in the north. This is said to be required to serve the employment needs in the north where southern imposed industrialization has destroyed the traditional way of life, forcing the northern natives to become alienated wage-labourers.

The development of the north for tourism would again entail a transformation. The beauty of the north is a special beauty, appreciated by the people of the north. The imposition of tourist resorts designed mainly to serve the Amerikan tourist market would bring all the conveniences necessary to ensure the huge flow of tourists. They would see the north through the windows of resort hotels. The northern tourist areas would be transformed into circuses for Amerikan tourists.

The far north is not the only area threatened by this development mentality.

Northern Ontario is indeed threatened. But in this case of Northern Ontario it is threatened from within, It is the threat of a southern mentality adopted by the political-businessmen of Northern Ontario, we see development as a god - more development equals more people equals more money equals more PROFIT! —

Northern Ontarions are a special kind of people who prefer space to convenience - a people who would rather walk in the bush than drive on a superhighway - a people that would rather camp alongside a lake than stay in a luxury hotel with a heated pool.

Northern Ontario, with its lakes & rivers, and undeveloped land can serve these people well. An attempt to bring this life to southern Ontarions on a mass scale, through luxury hotels or crowded trailer parks in the north would only transform the north. It may serve the needs of southern Ontarions looking for diversions from the big cities, but it would destroy the type of life that Northern Ontarions have found far superior to the convenience of the south.

Anyone who has been on the Polar Bear Express should understand what this is all about. Moosonee and Moose Factory are invaded every day during the summer by the hundreds. Invaded to the extent that the tourists outnumber the residents during the day. The culture of the communities has been transformed, from one in which the native population provided for their own needs, to one where they serve the needs of southern tourists. Native art is no longer an expression of culture, but a commodity to be sold to the tourists. Life is no longer satisfying, but alienated. Northern Ontario is a special community and Northern Ontarions are special people.

Imagine two lovers walking along the shore of a Northern Ontario river, crossing the current together to a rock island over-looking the beauty of rapids. Imagine the same scene, this time with rows of camper-trailers parked along the shore of the river. It just isn’t the same. Love

 

The thought of Karl Marx (1973-10-23)

By Richard W. Woodley

Today, one-half of the world’s population - is governed under political systems based on the ideas of Karl Marx.

Yet the other half of the population has a very poor understanding of Marx’s actual ideas. The association of Marxism with the ‘‘enemy” of communism during the cold war era, presented the western public with a distorted view of Marxism. Anti-communist groups invariably presented a negative view of Marx’s philosophy, more often based on the acts of those who claimed to be his followers, than on his actual philosophy.

On the other hand, certain left wing groups present Marx’s philosophy more in a manner designed to show that they are the real Marxists, than to explain what Marx really said.

With the decline of the cold war, there was a more objective interest shown in Marx and his philosophy by academics. But a clear understanding of Marx’s philosophy required a great deal of study of his writings and his life.

In an attempt to bring Marx’s ideas to the general public, numerous books of selections from his writings became popular. But all too often these were just collections of disjointed specimens of his work presented one after another with no reference to the context within which they were written.

In “The Thought of Karl Marx’’, David Mclellan manages to overcome this major problem, without giving us the feeling that is is his ideas and not those of Marx that we are reading,

He does this, not simply by using selections from Marx, but by placing them in the context of Marx’s life and the historical conditions of the time they were written.

In the first section of his book, Mclellan divides Marx’s life into periods based on historical events and the development of his writing. He gives a historical sketch of Marx’s life and the period followed by selections from Marx’s writings. To this he adds a brief out line of the historical events and influences on Marx at the time of writing & reasons for writing each particular piece of work.

This approach to Marx does a lot to discredit the many charges of contradiction levelled at Marx, by showing how Marx’s philosophy and writings changed and developed. It also puts Marx’s writings into the context of why they were written - as a philosophic treatise, economic theory, political pamphlet, or journalism - a very important distinction when interpreting them.

In the second section of the book, Mclellan deals with Marx’s writings by subject (e.g. Alienation. Labour, Class, etc.) He follows a pattern similar to that used in the first section, describing the influences on Marx’s writings on each subject followed by selections from his work.

The book is an excellent introduction to Marx’s ideas, for someone who does not have the time or inclination to read a great deal of Marx’s original work.

It does, by its nature as a book of edited selections, suffer from the influence of the author’s interpretations. However, the author’s intent appears to be to given an outline of Marx’s ideas as free as possible from his own personal prejudices.

 

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

Next post back to our regular programming

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

The Lambda Fifth Columns: Part 1 (of 4), Fall 1971

This is the first 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 First Column (VOL 10#08 1971-11-02)

Richard W. Woodley

This column is dedicated to the proposition that Canada (and indeed the world) is in a crisis situation and that fundamental social change is required to remedy this situation.

This week week will look at an attempt to cause fundamental social change in Ontario, an attempt that failed with the return to power of the Conservative government.

The election of the Conservative government, with an even greater majority than before, was an event unexpected even by the Conservatives themselves, who saw the possibility of their being put in a minority government position. It was seen as an impossibility by the NDP, who near the end of the campaign were beginning to see themselves as possibly forming the government.

What went wrong ? Why did the attempt to gain fundamental social change through “participatory democracy’’ fail ? The NDP campaign had all the attributes of the campaign of a people’s party - it was a campaign fought on issues important to the people and conducted by the people, thousands of unpaid workers throughout the province. That this kind of campaign can succeed was seen clearly in the Sudbury area, where the hard work of hundreds of workers visiting every home in the area three times before the election and one or more times on election day won three seats for the party. In Sudbury Riding the NDP won despite the massive advertising campaign of the Conservative candidate (said to have cost over $25,000) who came last. The people of the Sudbury area were convinced that the NDP cared about them.

Certainly the provincial government’s lack of concern for the north may have been a factor in the NDP sweep of the Sudbury area. But then why did the NDP not sweep all of Northern Ontario, as expected, and why did the Conservatives win seats in Northern Ontario ? And especially why Sudbury, which though it has its problems (e.g. housing, roads, hospitals) is one of the most prosperous areas of the province with a high employment rate, and why did areas like Oshawa, (illegible original print text) which is undoubtedly expecting layoffs in the near future, elect Conservatives.

Undoubtedly the ‘blue machine” had more effect than expected and though the people did not approve of the Conservatives’ advertising campaign, they bought the product - no change.

The question is why did they buy the product. the product was sold as toothpaste is sold and undoubtedly every move was calculated to take advantage of human psychology (one may be tempted to call this brainwashing). This linked with the insurance industry’s advertisements, strategically brought forth at the end of the campaign with little chance for their refutation, was critical. So the people bought Bill Davis and his no change policy.

It seems that the campaign had its effect at the last minute - it was a culmination of psychological influences that formed the voters’ decisions at the end. Thus there was a high percentage of undecided votes right up until the election itself. Thus as the Conservative support was not acquired till the end of the campaign, the NDP support appeared artificially high till it reached a point where the NDP appeared to be able to elect the government.

At this point the ‘blue machine’ had its final effect. And with this came a reaction against change. And in fear of an NDP victory the people voted against the NDP and for the government, the result being the re-election of the reactionary Conservative government.

The only way the ‘blue machine’s’ psychological manipulation can be fought is by winning support early and holding it - not allowing undecided voters to be psychologically manipulated by the ‘blue machine’. This is what happened in the Sudbury basin - and it was only because of hard work by people dedicated to social change.

What will happen with the re-election of the Conservative government is uncertain. But the fight for social change must continue, Pressure must be put on the government continuously. It will be harder with a reactionary government than with one dedicated to social change - but the battle must continue.

 

The Second Column (VOL 10#09 1971-11-09)

By Richard W. Woodley

In volume two of ‘‘attempts at social reform that failed’’ we return to Laurentian University and our own Students’ General Association.

For most students attending Laurentian the top priority is academics, i.e. their courses. This is obvious as that is what they pay their $490 for. Though other aspects may contribute as much to their education, it is to take courses that they come to Laurentian.

Therefore academics should be the SGA’s top priority and the SGA’s aim should be to ensure that students get the highest quality courses possible.

The SGA took the first step towards this with its orientation program this year, which hoped to provide comprehensive academic counselling for students, especially new students, This was a limited success due to its being an initial experiment - but many things were learned from it. Hopefully next year’s program will start earlier and be more comprehensive.

However two things are vital to a good orientation and counselling program. They are a good student handbook and a good counter calendar., We had a good student handbook (ORCA) this year and will hopefully have a better one next year. This year we did not have a counter calendar and it appears that we won’t have one next year.

A counter calendar provides an evaluation of all professors and all courses taught in a school. It is based on questionnaires distributed to all students in all courses. It is an invaluable aid in the selection of courses by students.

From a counter calendar students can learn what courses were successful (from other students’ point of view) and what courses were not. They can see what students from the previous year felt about the courses and professors, This gives a student at least a basis for deciding what courses and what professors to choose.

A counter calendar can indicate professors who can’t or don’t bother to teach, It can indicate individual professors particular teaching methods. It can indicate where courses differ from the official calendar description and provide descriptions of what the courses were actually about,

A counter calendar used with student counselling provides an excellent basis for deciding what courses to take. Counselling without such a calendar is almost impossible unless you have counsellors who took every course available and then you only get one person’s opinion, while a counter calendar provides a summary of a whole classes’ opinions, When you have few counsellors, as we had this year, a counter calendar is an absolute necessity.

Besides aiding students in course selection a counter calendar can be an aid in deciding on the hiring and promoting of professors. Even if the administration doesn’t adopt its recommendations the student members of the hiring and promotions committees can use the counter calendar as a guide in their decisions.

However, the SGA, in its wisdom, has decided that Laurentian shall not have a counter calendar this year. This decision was taken when a viable proposal for a counter calendar exists.

The proposal was put forward by former SGA president Jim Stark, representing a non-profit company EDUCORP which specializes in producing counter calendars and doing other computer work for student unions,

The counter calendar EDUCORP proposes is based on a questionnaire which has been pre-tested and used across Canada and the United States. It will be used by Cambrian College in Sudbury this year. EDUCORP will provide the questionnaires, analyze them, and print the counter calendar for $2,140, The SGA will be responsible for distributing and collecting the questionnaire as well as preparing a summary of the comments on each professor. (The questionnaire contains pre-coded questions as well as space for longer comments,) -

The two basic criticisms of the proposal was that it was developed outside Laurentian and that it would be costly and difficult to administer.

The first criticism is unfounded as the nature of such a questionnaire is general and the same questions are relevant to all campuses. What students at Laurentian want to know about professors and courses is the same as what students anywhere want to know about professors and courses. What is more important is that the questionnaire has already been pre-tested and proven effective and relevant to what students want to know. As well a Laurentian developed questionnaire would be much more costly, approaching $6,000,

As far as the problem of cost is concerned all of the SGA’s responsibilities could be carried out on a voluntary basis, All it would require is organization. A well organized program working through each department would spread the work among several students in each department - each having a relatively small amount to do. The problem of student apathy would not be great in this case as students would see the personal value of a counter calendar. and would gladly help with its implementation as it is something that is a direct help to them in their studies. Thus the cost would be $2,140 for the production of the counter calendar, and there would be no great problem in its implementation.

As far as the time factor is concerned, it is far from too late, as the questionnaire should not be filled out till the students have at least one semester to base their evaluation on.

Thus if an agreement with EDUCORP was entered into soon a counter calendar could be available during the summer so that students could use it as a guide prior to registration.

The SGA is responsible to the student body as a whole and must respond to mass student pressure. The counter calendar will aid every student, It is up to every student to make his views known. But it must be done immediately.

 

The Third Column (VOL 10#10 1971-11-16)

By Richard W, Woodley

Well the SGA has done it again. You may remember that when the decision to open the pub in the cafe robot area was made, students were promised that the area would be available as a lounge when it wasn’t being used as a pub. We have had numerous inquiries from “lounge starved’’ students as to when it would be opened as a lounge. Well we have news - the SGA Council, in its wisdom, has decreed that STUDENTS ARE VANDALS and shall not be able to use this area as a lounge lest they do thousands of dollars of damage to the furniture (which they paid for). Of course it is understood that STUDENTS ARE VANDALS only in the day when they wish to use the area as a lounge but not during the evening when they go there to drink,

What else is there to say except that you have a chance overrule your representatives as the question will be put to you during the up-coming student Senate by elections. If you want the area as a lounge and don’t want to be “shit on’’ anymore this is your last chance,

Meanwhile the area remains locked!

Another SGA decision will be up for re- viewing at the next Council meeting (Wednesday, November 24, 7:00 pm. Room L207). Jim Stark, former SGA President and representative of the company proposing the latest counter calendar proposal, will be present at the meeting to explain the proposal to Council members who will be able to reconsider their previous decision not to accept the proposal.

A decision on SGA policy regarding incidental fees will also be made at that meeting,

At the same meeting a proposal will be put forward to make the council more representative of the students most important interest - his learning experience.

At present council members are elected according to Colleges which are simply social agencies. A much more relevant basis for election will be proposed. It will be proposed that the SGA Council representatives be elected according to the student’s academic fields. In this manner the SGA’s highest body will be representative of the students’ most important interests. Your representatives will be elected from amongst those who are in your same faculty - students who you will probably know better and whose qualifications you will be better able to judge.

As academic matters should be foremost in the priorities of the SGA, then the Council should be representative of the students academic interests.

Students are urged to attend this council meeting to present their views - otherwise you may be “shit on’’ again.

 

The Fourth Column (VOL 10#11 1971-11-23)

By Richard W. Woodley

The question of incidental fees is one that has been avoided and evaded by both the Students’ General Association and the Senate. The SGA tabled the matter until the specific motion that was tabled was forgotten about. However they have been collecting information on the situation in other universities and a decision on the matter should be forthcoming at tomorrow’s Council meeting.

Senate has referred the matter, in Senate tradition, to a number of committees, of which at least one does not exist. If it gets back to Senate, before the deadline for payment of the second instalment of student fees is due, all will be amazed.

This is a question which is of much importance to all students as it involves what they pay to this institution as student fees. However, of more importance is the affect that a decision on the matter will have on student services.

Compulsory fees guarantee that the service they provide will be available. With non-compulsory fees year to year planning in these fields is difficult as the number of students wishing to pay the fees each year is unknown.

However the other question is one of principle. Should a student pay a fee for services he does not receive and does not wish to receive, In this area the fees can be divided into two categories. One category is that of services which the student may not wish to take advantage of and does not get the advantage of. The Athletic Fee is an example of this - students not wishing to take part in athletics do not get the advantage of the fee. The College Fee is the same for students not taking part in college social activities. The Health Services Fee is of the same category for students who have a family doctor in Sudbury and do not take advantage of the Health Services.

The SGA is of a different sort as students who would opt out of the SGA fee would undoubtedly still benefit from its services.

Another category can also be added - that is one of essential services. ‘Health Services is an essential service for those that need it and as such the subsidization of such a fee by those who do not use it can be justified. However because of its special essential character it should be logically included in tuition (provided compulsory insurance is removed).

The SGA is also an essential service - for all students. For without a student union future progress of this university, as far as making it a more humane place to learn, would be slowed down immensely. As well past student gains could be eroded without its presence. It assures student representation on important bodies and committees and provides a ‘‘unity’’ that is necessary to prevent the student from being ‘‘screwed’’, The existence of an independent student newspaper is a very important way that students’ rights are protected. This is not taking into account the necessity of a student organization to provide services such as the Pub and La Boutede - and in the future the administration of a campus centre.

The differences in the services suggests that their fees be treated in different manners.

The Athletic and College Fees should be optional as they are non-essential services which should be provided for those who want them only.

The Health Services, a special case as explained, should be paid for out of tuition costs.

The SGA Fee should be treated in a special manner. As all students necessarily benefit from it, and in reality all would want to, it should be compulsory. The compulsory fee would prevent students from benefiting from the SGA at the expense of their fellow students.

However to ensure that the SGA is providing the students with what they want, and to ensure that it is providing it adequately, the compulsory fee could be contingent on its receiving fifty per cent support from the student body in a referendum held each year (to apply to the collection of the next year’s fees).

This would ensure that the SGA was relevant to the student body as a whole as well as preventing individual students from ‘‘freeloading’’ on the rest of the students,

The existence of a students’ union is essential to the students of the university. It is up to them to make sure that it serves them.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 10#12 1971-11-30)

By Richard W. Woodley.

What Senate needs is a new chairman,

The present chairman’s obsession with efficiency has gone too far. The chairman’s attempt at using dictatorial methods at last Thursday evening’s Senate meeting was not the first occasion he has acted in such a manner. He has shown his contempt for the members of Senate on numerous occasions.

It is not just that he attempts to move Senate business along quickly but he disregards Senate’s right to decide how its meetings will be carried on.

At Thursday evening’s meeting he put forth a ten o’clock deadline which was extended by Senate. After the extension was passed Professor Barry, an observer at the meeting, repeatedly attempted to be recognized. Finally he addressed the chair and was told he would not be recognized immediately. He waited patiently until the chairman called for a vote. Upon this, Professor Wagner, a Senate member, reminded the chair that Professor Barry wished to speak. The chair said it would not allow him to speak (in the interests of expediency). (A number of observers had previously been allowed to speak.)

Professor Wagner immediately challenged the chair’s decision. The chair said that it would not accept the challenge. This was too much for student Senate candidate Ike Lindenburger, who protested and finally told the chairman to “go to hell”. At this point the chairman told Mr. Lindenburger to leave or the meeting would not continue. Mr, Lindenburger refused and the chair recessed the meeting for ten minutes. During this time a number of faculty members on Senate managed to convince Mr. Lindenburger to leave, on the understanding that the chair would be challenged when the meeting resumed.

The meeting was resumed and in a matter of minutes was recessed. The challenge was not put and Professor Barry did not speak. Though Senate’s business was resolved satisfactorily, the question of the chair’s ruling was not - and in this the members of Senate share the blame with the chair.

The point is that, though the chair has the right to decide if an observer may speak, Senate itself has the final decision.

“An appeal may be made from any decision of the chair (except when another appeal is pending), but it can be made only at the time the ruling is made. It is in order when another member has the floors’’ (Roberts Rules of Order)

The chair, according to the rules, must recognize a challenge. Not to allow Senate the final decision is to show contempt for the Senate., This is not the first time the chairman has said that he would not recognize a challenge. On previous occasions the Senate has had to force the chair to take a vote on challenges and usually the chair’s decision has been defeated.

If the chair has no respect for the rights of Senate, then the chair should be replaced.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 10#13 1971-12-07)

What is the purpose of Laurentian University? Perhaps this question gets to the root of all our problems. Trying to be a university like all the others is obviously leading to problems. So then, we should be “unique”.

The most common suggestion for achieving this uniqueness, is to exploit our regionality. It is said that we are a regional university and should concentrate on regional studies. In this way we can compete with southern universities by not competing in the same fields.

This is logical but does not provide a real alternative. The field of studies would be different, but that’s about all. We would still be the same type of university.

That type of university is the graduate-research oriented university where everything is geared towards the graduate level. The undergraduate level is simply a preparatory level for the ‘‘real thing”.

Today’s students are frustrated. From grade school to high school they are continually being prepared and looking forward to the next step. They do not consider the stage they are at as being useful but just as preparation for something greater. When they reach university they think they have finally “arrived” only to be told ‘‘you really should plan on graduate studies”.

Of course, what is a BA worth, Nothing? It is said that it is no longer a job ticket, This could be the best thing that ever happened to universities - if it is reacted to properly.

Universities in the past pretended to ‘‘educate” - while attempting to provide job training at the same time. Of course they failed.

Now is the time for polarization. What we need is a complete split of the two functions with job training and education provided by separate institutions. One need not choose. In our society today we do not need a large labour force. People can afford to spend more time in school - they can attend both types of institutions - and society can afford to support them while they are there.

What are the implications of this for Laurentian? Laurentian has the opportunity to be a leader, as an education oriented university.

I propose that Laurentian become a purely undergraduate university (a graduate university is only a job training school for professors). It is not too late for this as Laurentian has not yet become a completely graduate oriented university,

Graduate schools provide more individualized education. We should do this on the undergraduate level.

With this will come a certain freedom., Freedom from *‘standards’’. We should not gear our programs to ‘‘standards” of industry or graduate schools. Let other universities do that.

The main point here is that students are realizing that university does not guarantee employment, Increasingly those people who come to university will be coming strictly for an education. If we can do this better than anyone else we can attract the real “best’’ students.

The major criticism of the elimination of graduate studies is that it won’t attract the best staff, as they wish to have research facilities. But we will attract staff that want, first of all, to work with people. And that is what education is all about. We will attract people from all over who never had this type of university to work in.

What this would do for Laurentian would be to open it up for all sorts of rewarding innovations in education, simply by the elimination of outside ‘‘standards’’. Evaluation, examination, and grading could be eliminated.

It would not be the same institution it is now and would not attract the same students, But why should it? CHANGE!

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 10#14 1971-12-14)

By Richard W. Woodley

What is love? ;

What is this world all about. Are people really happy. Do people know what they really want out of life or are they simply goal oriented towards goals that they are artificially socialized into seeking. Is the pursuit of “happiness’’ the pursuit of love,

Love is portrayed as a saviour; but what is love. Love is seen as the solution of the world’s problems and indeed it is. But how many people know what it really is and how many people really feel it. How can everyone in the world learn to love everyone else if few people can even learn to love someone else.

Is love happiness. And are too many people too busy worrying about happiness to love or be loved.

Is love relevant.

Happiness, unfortunately, is defined socially - society defines happiness and, as one has little control over one’s society, one has little control over one’s happiness or indeed over what one learns to consider as happiness.

Though love should be social in the sense that it is for others - it is not by my definition social. It is not socially defined for it is not definable. It is inner, it is a feeling, not exactly contentment but just a feeling of... love. It may not be exactly “bells ringing’’ but maybe more of a quiet reassuring, even in the midst of desperation, “humming’’.

What is this all about anyway - a personal plea or a solution for humanity. Perhaps neither, perhaps both, perhaps nothing perhaps everything,

But there must be more to life than socially defined happiness - and socially defined love would be even worse and unreal - love is not socially definable.

What is love, Love is personal and interpersonal. Can love be mass - can one love the world, Love is ‘‘a complete giving of oneself” so can one completely give oneself to the world.

Let us start at the beginning. If everyone is to love everyone, then first of all everyone must love someone. But if love is “a complete giving of oneself” can one completely give oneself to another. And, in defence of individualism, is this desirable. But is this really, literally, what love is or is love just a feeling.

Love is an inner commitment. Not necessarily a commitment to another, but a commitment to yourself to another.

But why love. If love is not ‘‘happiness’’ and it may not always be so, if love is painful, why seek it. But is love painful, or does it just appear that way when compared to “social happiness’’.

I began by saying that love is portrayed as a saviour - but is it love that is portrayed or some form of “socialized love’’. Perhaps in it’s very nature love cannot be portrayed or described or talked about, but only felt. Then is this relevant, Is this talking about love or talking about ‘‘talking about love’’,

Have I been artificially socialized into falling for an artificial image of love. The closest I could come to describing “love”, with the tools of language available, would be similar to the “self-sacrificial image of it’’, but it is not that and it is much more than that.

Perhaps it has a depth that society has socialized people out of being able to conceive.

Why love, especially if love is painful, why love. Society and the socialization process has defined man’s society, man’s goals, even man’s happiness. It cannot define his love. It cannot prevent his loving. It can make it difficult and make it painful but it cannot destroy it or distort it.

Love is personal and as such is that which makes man human. It may be all that man has left in today’s socialized technological world. It is inside and thus the outside cannot distort it or destroy it. It is humanity. It is life!

Merry Christmas Love

 

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