The Cadre Friday, April 1, 1977 page 14 . ‘ ' ‘ ‘ '

Canadian student organizations Celebrate fifty years of near-ooh

4 I

the student position.

. 1 , marina.- ' " ' - ' ' “min a) n‘ r on December 26' 1976“ was exaaly ﬁfty What IS NFCUS? 3&7)"; o of Mr Withdraw M '33 3:— There were disputes as. to which

NJLUJ—(‘I’heﬁutianl Federation of Can-diu- Unimu’ly Studentl). ' , ""‘POSE—‘To yrmnnte,‘li every way pol-thin, I better na-

n- All Clnldiui mivenitiel {or the effective 1;»

NU u Ind‘la provide . mm for iimioping

Itudenh in other eountriel."

years since the founding conference of NF- CUS, the organization whose ‘ existence‘ began student unionism in this country.

The organized student movement was 1 S Am 9 Q. "L founded in a period of calm and prOSperity. ,d 01101;,“ [1 ﬁrst}: Fifty years later it is in the midst of an in— ge‘j-i'gfgfII-é-mm y C 1 . ternal crisis and must deal with the crisis in “#:3315353:qu 2° Menu» Ollege the post-secondary education system. . . . .

Discovery of where the student movement has come from may provide a perspective helpful in directing it. A ﬁftieth

mmWhen Boost. Beiecte'd

«tn-l life 1

irrational P: - '"d w‘m’h“ ntiumpeud that the .nnul/l/ ' TIMI. {JI- Cv m m membenhlp he be int-re. ' r t nation- ‘0 "g. Mm cider-My. Accomp- ‘ an Univ-r; nu. mid-m 9°“; "" 1951. S‘ ‘ ' A”? 5‘ I vote var . in 1;)" 1,5. tad “um” “um.” w e m plum

organization should represent students in Canada. The issue was settled when the CSA fell apart in the face of accusations that it was anti-war and engaged in party politics. NFCUS moved to ﬁll the need for some, exchange of ideas and the national Dummiwnn level and heightened peace movement Was forcing NFCUS into the political forum.

Representations on student assistance were

.lflvn delay-lion wt _ c332??? - Mew-r NFCU‘gnngtgt ,- made to the federal government Shortly

.-I¢n- .. mm um“, C9,, ' w“ _ before the war broke out.

4W 8 .m Que}. tree tuition u C-rIeCUS it .m for the “Min of their poliul- While Dq-I's. t (‘C _ gm... tint-t: plinth-o Cnrleton_sludentx 0“”? "°‘- 10]) J Vol. 3 '

anniversary is, then, more'than symbolic. U «- ﬁthﬂmnﬁm glad... _ - - l A 0 7 . ’3: POST WAR NFCUS '“e rererendum in- 41 They thought one dolllr d OVERVIEW Q _ . . v..... a _ er Offers ' "‘“°“L3°“’; Emigmi memeutmml! cum ' During World War II most NFCUS ac- .- man be I m cumin My -. To" W «uhuuirmuimm. ; "n nah-Id- ‘ — I "a" mum" '" up" tivity ceased, and {l was the task of 1944

t if the 1m wen an d » Jlr- But, 22 year old prelldcnt “"me: "ﬁnd" “in m.“ b, r,“ y of n. University of arm-ii comm. (DEN-l w -

I in. mind the National NF-C— 4" "mm \ . . _ 1 - 1mm,“ “a” h" _ ya ofﬁce diluted in Cumin “makinm'i...” mi

lawn is. I'. m"

The student movement in Canada has been organized since 1926, yet the organization, while successful in many

1‘8 ant-u!“ - f E ost Carleton will be minim -Ul‘ope

CUS membership III

.and 1945 conferences. to renew con- sciousness of the Federation. The

Itlol up. And .1... nun-hm thus-when which an»: n e

llltely I . chosen ﬁelds, have proven unable, so far, ' I l 0 a g a ﬂ 0 u t E 5 :33 rebuilding was fhelped greatlyby the cross- to achieve the strength and stability shown p 5..“‘3ia‘ii 6i.wa ' M“ m mm mum,,,,,,,;;;-;;;}md,3neirm m... "an; 2; ;;‘;:;._.f°“'\'¢'be 1“ , couniry {gm 0 'the 3946-47 Pres'dem' He by

roblems an tren s ave ii am y con- ~ f . my», mm “cw-mm ,i: " ‘ “mm-rum 7"‘5 J v' 'I . . ' , ~ ' Etant during the past 50 years, including dif- :m eoygﬂg'g; Sir/#55:: me, Q’ (3%, -....‘.........P°§“.\ _ “Munouiusﬁ .1; foundations for NFCUS s first serious in- ﬁculty of administration, regional rivalries, iafwgﬂi‘e "-‘:’{{ 1“, writs @v 5 N.ii..90’o“°'3‘tfmm;: ﬁébern‘eg. :1; swig-gin VOIVCmCm With the International Stlldent ﬂuctuating membership and enthusiasm for "'.',‘,"...oﬂe,," ' Iaéfffyer 45$ . , .ELzliltui'Kigi3‘mﬁéf “‘"uj‘jbggggimsagot‘ «my 21 a. a!!! in. movement. _ . I ‘ the student movement. LEM ,; m,” ell/I—iaf/bﬂ/ Q» \ $1.!ELT'JAZKWJ... j, .“h'ﬁmgqmimmﬂ. cm_, V For the most part-the organization was The Size of Canada makes Com' rm It I' I 3/ Q .luIthtl- :l'he convention wu oppued’ “a not he‘l‘l'i'dnl‘i: a content ‘0 continue in pre_war of . . . . . . ,- lg “cu; m...» 4. g I s ‘ illl’l this on the [rounding-ll Eu. f o a“ w. _ i . _ , munications and institutional relations that gowns—gum“ % / *Two Students. council m b .g (.4 .n . serVice domination, although there was are necessary to build the strong sense of -' M “we ‘m'mm «ham. ..?.'.“...§.'.§ﬁ.‘:;:;.. o «Biol-mini some agitation for reduction of the rim.

common action that many look for in these organizations. It often seems that the only two alternatives are a highly centralized operation which appears remote to the members and one which is so decentralized

that efﬁcient administration and decision- '

making is impossible.

Especially since the mid-1950’s regional differences and rivalries have been a frequent source of friction. Students have sometimes been unwilling to recognize and allow for regional differences in tactics and attitudes, even when there was agreement on activities and concrete goals. Policy dif- ferences have been obscurred by preoc- cupation with regionalism.

There has been the sentiment that a student organization must directly represent a large majority of its constituents or else it has little credibility. This feeling

goes beyond the practical problems (like

low fee revenue) that accompany a small membership. The insistence upon a con- stantly large membership has led to virtual

panic when, in any one year. several mem- . bers leave an organization — regardless of

their reasons for doing so. Indeed, one disturbingly constant pattern is the rise and fall of members' interest and

of actual membership. At three times in the ’

past 50 years most student governments have watched serious problems develop in the organization(s) of the movement. Each time the ﬁrst reaction of many was to with- draw until the organization(s) improved, or to conclude that no common Organization was worth the effort. Each timesome of the members have chooscn to analyze the problems and apply additional resources to the solution. Twice this succeeded ~— unity was restored and with a new en- thusiasm the organization(s) prospered.

In l968-69 the rebuilding effort was too late. It faced new factions including mass media coverage and widespread rejection of all formal organizations. No “cure” for

ﬂuctuating membership is known. Its con-'

tinuation may mean that Canada’s student organizations will always be relatively weak. '

It would be dangerous to simply forget this pattern. Past periods of strength may have obscured the problem and left

organizations unprepared to deal with fluc:

um. . trident perm . tsult of referendumaﬁmﬁlﬂmy§..mean8..tq-t|ittn m m J’

“mun”! out rim must with- Pmldi-thn W Cmmn Cd-

scus

:arle'fon‘ VOl‘e

tuations when it resumed. At the same time, this pattern should not be a cause for fatalism, or the dominant consideration in planning the development of student organizations. The pattern only destroyed an organizationonce, and even' then the vestiges of common organization lasted un- til 1971-72 and common organization was renewed less than three years after the l969 collapse.

Another quality of student organizations has been sponsorship of co-operation

within the post-secondary education comr

munity. The most successful of these effor- ts led to the creation of Canadian Univer- sity Press (CUP). It was founded on the initiative of the student governments, was totally funded by the national student organization for its first two years and was subsidized by that organization for more ,than20years.

'NATIONAL FEDERATION 0F CAN- ADIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Canadian students first joined together

_ formally at that December 1926 meeting in

Montreal which founded NFCUS. Within a few years most campuses had joined.

NFCUS’s founders had been inspired by the British National Union of Students and the original activities included sponsorship of intercollegiate debating and travel in Europe along lines developed by NUS (UK). Another priority, gaining national student discounts, had success in the rail and sporting goods industries.

Much of the early enthusiasm was generated by an inter—regional student ex- change scholarship program. NFCUS con- vinced universities .to participate and although only a few scholarships were available each year the program was viewed as a symbol of the new co-operation and wider horizons of Canadian students.

The early growth of NFCUS was cut off by the Depression. Low enrollment meant ﬁnancial difficulty for most student gover- nments, and part of their response was to reduce the NFCUS levy and have national conferences biannually instead of annually.

unity or in

Some continuity was provided by having

the; same person serve as National

Secretary-Treasurer from 1929—1939. However, the low income and infrequent meeting led to losses in experience‘and con- tinuity of office. Work began in the late 1920’s, continued, but little else was begun.

- NFCUS came to be regarded as a purchased

service' rather than a meeting place of Canadian students.

EMERGENCE 0F CUP , Student newspapers in North America had always exchanged issues, but aside

- from some western conferences the student

press in Canada had not organized on an in- r,

tercampus basis. After 1935 NFCUS was revitalized by the student pacifist movement. Students

responded to the danger of world war with I

peace petitions, conferences and model Leaques of Nations. NFCUS fees were in- creased and it resumed annual meetings.

' The December 1936' meeting prepared plans for a national press organization. The immediate goal was full exchange of newspapers and the name Canadian University Press was adopted.

« Early articles dealt with the pacifist movement and links between nationalism and fascism. CUP was ofﬁcially founded in Winnipeg, December 1937. This was merely one of the events at an emotional national assembly of more than 300 students from all campuses in Canada. The assembly marked the true beginning of a politicized student movement. '

POLITICAL VERSUS SERVICES .

The conﬂict between the concept of a ,service-only organization and that of a political organization was never more shar- , ply posed than at the 1937 and 1938 national conferences. The ill effects of the NFCUS depression slowdown were most obvious

when a rival organization, the Canadian ,

warning conti'

“manta-plot

.‘-—--~Inul Reba H mm o «burrows-nu”: _ ant-uni. '

Student Assembly (CSA) was created. Its ,

purpose was to provide a forum where uriversity students discussed international and national issues, reaching decisions on

‘c'ial barriers to post-secondary education.

Quebegdesire for.protection of their culture discouraged strong NFCUS activity on education issues. ' , j

7A permanemvoffice in Ottawa was established in 1951, and thisserved to in-

_ crease the internal continuity of NFCUS.

CUP moved into the ofﬁce, and thetwo organizations shared office space and equipment until the 1969 CUS collapse. The more active role and increased political involvement of NFCUS caused some strains among the members that had not been evident previously. A

Enrollment declined as .veterns graduated, causing a decrease ~in NFCUS

' income. It was impossible to meet all the

demands upon the organization and some student governments began to enter and leave with alarming regularity. The division was. most often betvveen'larger and smaller

(members, although there were also dif~

ferences over policy. The point came in

.1956 when NFCUS leaders considered

dissolving the federation because it no longer represented at least half of the university students, -

The response to the ﬂuctuating member- ship was’ a more ambitious program. stressing national unity and the need for l

‘ adequate national student aid plan. NFCUS

participated in the Canadian Education Conferences, and . interest -in' the organization increased with the general growth of concern about postssecondary education. The period from '1958 to 1962 was untrou'bled and fairly productive. NFCUS_directly rep‘resented‘up to 80 PCP cent of the university Students. Its members were pleased with the work of the executive and the secretariat. The public was recép' tive to studentsf desire for better aid plans.

CANADIAN UNION OF STUDENTS (CUS) * , w x _

New problems arose in 1963. when NF- CUS failed to ﬁnd a structure and political stance that satisﬁed all members. Some wished NFCUS to continue largely as a service organization which lobbied for students but did not becomeinvolved in wider issues or social analysis. Others. especially the Quebecois, regarded students as members of the working class W110 should be paid for their and