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