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
