THE CADRE. TUES., FEB. 5, 1974 Page 3

Kathleen K oncern

At the January 10th meet- ing of Senate a proposal concerning a document to ad— equately express the phil— osophy, purpose and prior- ities of UPEI was debated. Since then I have heard of no attempt to form a sym- posium on the proposal. What is happening with the committee responsible for producing the document?

When I heard the proposal before Senate I waS'grat— ified to see work on this very important question of philosophy, priorities, etc. at UPEI, about to commence. I agreed with Senator Mac— Intyre's expression of un— limited support for the pe— ople willing to work on the propOSed document.

I agreed with the motion by Senate on another point as well? the instruction to the committee to seek a wi- de range of views from uni- versity students, professors, administrators and profess— ionals of all types. Altho- ugh there isn't a direct link between popular opin- ions and views, and the tr— ue role of a university, I still remain confident of the necessity to involve the broad base of opinion from the people of P.E.I. as well as from the expert university definers, (sic).

The‘challenge of finding the true role of a univers- ity in an island community such as ours is magnimonious indeed! And as UPEI is to have its role defined in reasonable time, the work involved in succeeding the challenge should and must begin immediately.

Perhaps the worst thing that can happen to a pro- posal like the one approved by Senate is to underestim— ate its complexities and importance. Only a narrow mind would suggest any ob— vious or simplistic app- roach to the problem invol-l ved here. . :

Usually, men and women, di- rectly benefitting from ex- isting institutions balk at any review of that insti- tutions role. When roles are being redefined and changed positions are also underramprocess:ofrredefi-

ARCHAIR HYSTERIA _

by ioel humon-

"As I have repeatedly stated, rum is the means by which changes will be made within this university."

nition and change. Happily, Senate's motion on the pro- posal dispells any notions of professional fear of

such a process of redefi— nition and change at this university. (???

However, the problem of an individuals inability to comprehend the totali- ties of problems makes me suspect of an attempt to produce a document not wa- shed with the hands of Islanders from all walks of life. I am saying that a secure and comfortable committee member cannot expect to gain inadequate insights into complex prob— lems from‘the armchair. Un— fortunately_for committee members, they must_face the concrete situation and shed the vestiges of this idealism which allows men andeomen to philosophise from armchairs. They must embark on a journey that will take them into the light of true understand- ing, for it is only from true understanding that

'1 .J

truths can be gained.

True understanding in the 1970's can be possessed only after great dialogue. There are no heros anymore! Electronic media has expos- ed the high and mightiest as common, cheap crooks. This means that there is no obvious source, no bible, that can be used in gain: ing insights into that whi- ch is true. "The great dia— logue" must commence before truth can be gained.

But when will this dialogue begin at UPEI. At present I have found no evidence of such an occurence. I implore the committee concerned with the production of the document to make plans for a public symposium to air and debate the issues in- volved.

UPEI does not need to be

' given its role: it must find

it for itself. Since only people make institutions, only people can direct in— stitutions, when does the committee expect to listen to the peqplen ‘IZ’I'LH n r v

..',' . '.(.‘.. t"