here are three proposals n the Committee on Aims objectives Report which wish to comment upon. t, there is proposal 18 h is_intitled "University . nity Center". The com? ee recommends that high- building priority to facility which would .ude a Coffee Shop, rec- .ional facilities for in— games such as darts, ue tennis, pool tables,

.e offices,_CIMN officeS, a common room with I

ge and has facilities, a eria, a Dining Room,dance {lities, student meeting 5, an amphitheatre, bank— facilities and a Chapel

lex. \ Ihe report ranks as its .md highest priority in

should be built. The « ittee expressed the opin— that enough attention was g paid to intercollegiate Its and more attentipn

ld be paid to intermural

o discouraged that the 'ent's proposals were not tified, but were assim— ed and watered down, so- our efforts appear to

- been of no use. For. "Ple, the Tenure proposal - article by Ro-Turking- . In conclusion, the“ let that was written by Loucks, Mujeeb'ur—ARah- . and Barb Stevenson will -any effect little

Be in the University,: cause yet another Sen— showdown. 4:» ‘

Elaingwsm’thies

r L

"3‘.

udentCommentarpy

. Student Union offices,"

Id also be included in this

Iding that an athletic com-

,ulty and four students.

\

sports here on compus. This

\relates to the dispute which

surfaced thes summer over

\ whether U.P.E.I. should have I Moneybelieves that this is not

a football team or not.

eventually becomes the stumb«;

ling block and football is

seen as the biggest expense for a single sport.

The report makes no men- tion or specifies as to what these inproved athletic fac— ilities should include but I would hope that a swimming pool would be in order; hopefully one which would be of regulation, competitive size so that the sport of swimming on P.E.I. as a whole could benefit.

In my opinion, the two buildings just dreamed about should be combined if pos— sible to form one huge Uni- versity Centre. Athletic and recreational—social fa- cilities are at a sickening level at this University. This is not to say that the programs suffer as mech as the facilities do. However, this is because a few hard- working people have told themselves that they will make the best of what we have. ,

The third proposal which I would like to comment upon is the one concerning Tenure. The Tenure Committee is set up to include eight faculty members and one student at present. The members teach- ing, research, etc. to de— cide if he or she should be granted a life—long contract with our University. The report by the Committee re— commends that two students, five faculty, and two people from outside the University make up the committee. This matter was brought to the attention by a students

_ grOup last year and this

group recommended five fac— The committee has settled on a compromise which I find unsuitable and which I be- lieve faculty would also find suitable if there is any consistency to their argue- ments. Last year when they were negotiating for a new contract, one of their come plaints was that certain ' members of the Board of Gov- ernors from_the community had no conception of fac- ulty's job as such. They merely looked at the 12-15 hoursthat most professors spend in a class each week and.decided that teaching

at a University was a pretty easy job. Well, now these people or their peers will be helping to decide not on—

‘ly how much faculty gets-~

paid, but also if they have a job. Myself, I still— stick to the original~demand_

e H r I !

~ ‘ The Cadre, Sept. 23, ]975, page 7

as Finall§|yAirrb~iv>ed - With Mixed Rta’t‘tions , of Course

by the Student Committee on of Govenors and—be able to Aims and 5bjectives that go to the P.E.I. Government there be five facultv and with complaints. We also four students. If someone proposed that the Council

on the University Life please keep the Student Re- port proposal on the subject in mind.

a better system than the one proposed in the re- port, I would be glad to hear their argument. _This is my review of three particular sections of the report. I don't, quite know what to say a— bout the entire report. It certainly tries to please everyone by being very conservative and low key in many of its recommendations. However,

Bing Gallant

The report of the Commit— .tee on Aims and Objectives is a mixture of woeful and useless points. Perhaps its stongest point lies in its being full of concrete pro- posals, not a mish—mash of vague generalities. To leave yourself open to cri- ticism takes courage; for

if it is handled in the ue sual way that these re— ports are handled at UPEI I'm sure it will remain on paper for some time and we won't even have to think about it. . . . unless someone wants to do some— thing about it. But who? Gerald "Woozy" MacDonald 113751811

The highlights of the Re- port from the Senate Commit— tee on Objectives, as seen in the light of the Student Report, are the "Tools of Education" course, general

‘ degree program, and Commun-

ity Professors.

The student proposal for the opening of university books is left out, as is our proposal for the even— tual abolition of tenure. We also made a proposal on the evaluation of profes—

sors. It was a three—phase affair: 1. a simple evaluation form.

2. personal interviews with-students in the professors’courses.

3. review of data ga— thered before the ap— propriate Committee, with professor pre— sent.

To encure an adequate teaching staff at U.P.E.I. we proposed a five—year con- tract system. .

The Obudsman and Council on University Life recom—

mendations are vague and could (as the report warns us) be drained of their power or have no power at ‘all.

" The big job for the University Community now is to define the power of the Ombudsman the function and

v membership of the Council

of University Life. I en— courage each person in the

U.P.E;I. Community (students

faculty, Administration) to do some hard studing and thinking about these two positions." A On the Ombudsman, our > proposal was that he should

be on an.equal power level ,:v~

with the Senate and Board

this the committee is to be commended. While the report contains

'some proposals of greatment—

a campus ombudsman, a "Uni—

versity Community Centre",

a school of veterinary med— icine, suggestions to improve the quality of tenured fac— ulty, courses in agriculture etc.—on the whole the report is something of a disappoint— ment.

It takes the philosophy of a Mujib Rahnan to state that the most inportant priorities in creating a ‘ "Democrative Rniversity Cen— tre" are the University Com- munity Centre, more inter— mural athletics, and a_Coun- cil on University Life! It takes even more gall to say "the democratization of the University system [is] a feature quite fully realized at U.P.E.I.", when student and faculty representation on the Board of Govenors up to 30%, when Board meetings

’and books are not open, when

students have little or no

input into decisions as to

who well teach or what will be taught. V

Also disheartening is the tendancy to advocate more boreaucracy, more regulations an expanded business office, an research officer, more required courses, etc.. Surely when both student and faculty numbers have gone down, it is no time to in— crease the administration's.

Perhaps, thoigh, most in— cidious is the tendency to be concerned with image rather than actuality. U.P.E.I. will never gain a "good" image until it is de— serving. Public relation campaigns will only serve to raise and then dash — expectatrocis. ,

In summary, there is much in the report to be desired but at the very least, it provides a working document to be criticized. After a year and a half— that's something, at any rate.:

David MacRae