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