. . _ m _y . V ,1 ~I—l

The Cadre, Apr. 1, 1975, page 12

‘ ' . Student Apathy Roma In ' Student Potnrlossn’éés

In the Of PrOf be sure! But Baker has Don Wiener of the psychol- ogy department, called a ’ general meeting of all students and faculty in the Duffy Amphitheatre.

His reason for doing so was ‘to reveal a "startling" discovery he made: there

was apathy at UPEI. Further- more, this apathy was among; students. He didn't say

why there was apathy no

one did, because no one

at that time knew the

cause of it.

For four years thereafter everything was blamed on apathy, and apathy was blamed on the students. Faculty blamed students and, after a bit, students blamed students. Students were niggers. Because they

are this,they must be taken I

_in tow "for their own good". And who we need do this? Why, faculty and administr— ation are their "natural superiorS" without whom "the students seemed to be

lost". - Now we're going to leave

this for the moment for other considerations but

we will return to it later. In his excellent editor-

ial of Jan. 21, 1975, Richard Willis, Cadre Editor, wrote in "Cheating

on Exams". "It would be nice to say

that all students are here to learn, but it just isn't “the case. The majority of students put the major- ity of emphasis upon gett- ing the degree. Universities have always been aware of this fact _ and as aresulthave set up testing and grading systems, which are in effect a way of saying that students must be forced to learn. This testing system as it exists, tends to alienate students even more from the process of learning. The emphasis is moved from the process of learning, to doing what» is necessary in order to get a good grade (or pass). What this has lead forth to is a highly complex system of cheating and plagiarism. The goal becomes "beating the system" and all methods are employed in order to do it. i This is very easy to understand when you consider that education is determin- ed and controlled in the interests of the leading class in Canada, a capit- alist country, the leading class is the capitalist class. . Education is obviously not for the student. The student is educated in

use to the capitalist economy; therefore most students major in Business. administration,-economics or the sciences since' science is heavily employed by the capitalists for‘ industry. The student cannot fulfill himself

by studying what would be, most useful to himself

' he must subordinate his

own development to the wishes of the capitalists whose dictates are chanel- led to the students via the government and media. The student whose effOrts are not for himself will inevitably begin to appear. apathetic; anyone who has not the right of self-det- ermination will eventually rebel.

-"But the students have their own student union? you may object. Yes, but‘ its constitution reflects the interests of faculty and administration the representation of the capitalist class; therefore when the students turn to it for guidance they find

it full of contradictions. fwvfi ‘ \ '

A few examples will suffice Louise Mould, in her arti— cle of file 4, 1975, p.4 said, "At UPEI we have, instead of this hypotheti- cally strong, together, powerful union; a burocra- tic, administrative, glorified social committee.‘ Miss Mould said,in the following edition. Feb 11, 1975, p. 6 "If the elected council proves to be a problem to the administration, they simply wait the year out until a new council. comes in. Perhaps this indicates that terms of office should be extended over a greater time period.

Faculty and administration (hereafter referred to as "Management") have the advantage of longivity whereas students have only a brief space of time within which to organize to defend their interests. By the time a student is prepared to execute his office effectively, his term expires.

All to the advantage of

‘Such a way as to be of .msnagement.

Not only do the students have no effective body of their own to defend and promote their interests those bodies of management which are dominated by N management, discriminate against students voice. Here again we'll'speak.

David MacRae, in the" Cadre, Feb 18, 1975 p 16 V observed: "Thus there are three people who are members of both bodies (Board‘ef GoVerners and Senate), President Baker, and his cohorts, Regis Duffy and Ken Ozmon. "All -well and good. We have then forty- one people who control our university; only eight' are students. Even if that

ecould be justified the

whole system is largely, artificial, If a "matter

of academic concern" happens to cost money (as most do). then who gets the final

psay on the matter? You

guessed it the unelected, unrepresentative Board of

’ Governors."

Imagine, eight students of almost 2000! Some democracy}!

MacRae‘s article-was responded to by none other than Baker himself on Feb 25, 1975, pp. 2 & 4 "There _is no need for anyone to strain his imagination.‘

I was on record (Baker al- ways seems to be "on record") as favoring a single gover— ning body for universities fifteen years ago. One of' the reasons I took the job here was that I understood that the government was prepared to set up the new uniyersity with a single governing body, with a ‘majority'of members from. the university communitee. (I was also in favor of \ students on the governing body.)" (Italics mine)

It comes as no surprise« to me (or to anyone“who knows R.J. Baker) that he would assume presidency under these terms. Can you- imagine the power he seeks when hE‘is in favor of the concentration of power in the hands of a few with' him at the top? And whereT would student represntation

fit in? Very minimally to la”.

the_gross and unmitigated gall to put in parentheses "I was also in favor of ~studenIs on the governing body." Imagine! In parent: hesisll _

Is there any doubt now

“as to why there is apathy? Is it not made sufficiently clear that apathy is rooted in powerlessness the lack of self—determination?

Art Laffin, in his article of Feb 25, 1975, p. 3 put it very well: _‘

"My reason though, for writing this article is to’try to explain‘that the reason why students have devoted so much attention

'to "secondary problems" is primarily because we as students have failed to recognize the "root problem" here on campus or to put it another way we try to solve secondary problems without ever asking why the problem is there

' in the first place. I am merely suggesting that if we got to the root of the problem here on campus,:a lot of these secondary problems could be allenia- ted. 7 "As far as I am concerned the root problem that we as students have Virtually ignored and now are beginn- ing to recognize, is the importance of the major decision making committees on campus and the role they play in determining university policy" (Italics mine)

Mr. Laffin in particular is to be commended on his .penetrating insight which

, gives all students a know-

‘ledge necessary to wage an effective struggle against management. Mr. Laffin will no doubt be at the fore as it develops., »

The following facts are now evident: " 1) Student apathy is rooted in student powerlessness; 2) Student represntation is, at best, only token;

3) The student union and its constitution is contra- dictory and too weak for studnets to use effectively

” to protect and promote '

V their interests; 4) Education is not for the ‘students, but serves the dominant social class, and is therefore against the students; 5) The gdvernment appoints not elects the most import- ant posts (Board of Govern— ors President etc.) 6) Democracy does not exist vfor students. / 2 \ Stan Dalton

(Continued next week) v I Part TWO: What Must_Be Bong1