vou..s-uo.2o 
     
    
   
   
    
     f 
     
    
   
   
    
     CADRE 
     
    
   
   
    
     'ihe student's poppet" 
     
    
   
   
    
       
     
    
   
   
    
     APRIL :9. 1914‘ 
     
    
   
   
    
       
     
    
   
   
    
       
     
    
   
   
    
     The following article written 
     
     by a McGill student, is one 
     
     of the most revealing and pro- 
     
     vocative articles ever to come 
     
     across my desk. It reveals the 
     
     use of knowledge and prof- 
     
    
   
   
    
     essional authority by imperi- 
     
     alistic universities and fac- 
     
     ulty. 
     
     Compare with UPEIl! 
     
    

    
     w To make it easier for you I 
     
     will point out a few: Baker. 
     
    
   
   
    
     ImperialisI-Fuscists at U.P.E.I.?! 
     
    
   
   
    
     - AN OPEN LETTER TO MCGILL . 
     
     STUDENTS: 
     
    
   
   
    
     Fellow Students; 
     
    

    
     In my Political Science 
     
     course at McGill our profess- 
     
     or gave us the following 
     
     exam question worth 65/100 
     
     exam points. The exam itself 
     
     is worth 25% of the final 
     
     grade. The question reads as 
     
     follows: "When it comes to 
     
     state-to-state relations, 
     
     ideaology is efglittle con- 
     
     sequence. In its name many 
     
     contradictory policies can 
     
     and have.been pursued. Ideo- 
     
     logy only lends a cover of 
     
     legitimacy to the underlying 
     
     pursuit of state interests.’ 
     
     Regardless of your personal 
     
     position in this matter, 1 
     
     \ write a systematic essay, 
     
    

    
     backed by concrete data, in 
     
    

    
     support of this preposition 
     
     with reference to the for- 
     
     eign policy behaviour of 
     
    

    
     the People's Republic of 
     
    

    
     China. (One hour)." 
     
    

    
     This is a most treacherous 
     
     question and because I refu- 
     
     sed to answer it I and anot- 
     
     her student in the class who 
     
     also refused to answer it 
     
     were given the equivalent of 
     
     a failing grade in the exam. 
     
     The reason I failed is be- 
     
     cause I failed to go against 
     
     all principle as the profes- 
     
     sor demands in the question 
     
     and refused to slander the 
     
     People's Republic of China. 
     
     No amount of professors will 
     
     make me give up principle and 
     
     turn truth on its head in 
     
     this shameless manner. I st- 
     
     rongly protest that this pro- 
     
     fessor should be allowed to 
     
     misuse the responsibility 
     
     entrusted to him to teach at 
     
     McGill in order to make an 
     
     entire class turn truth com- 
     
     pletely on its head and slan- 
     
     der the People's Republic of 
     
     China. The essence of what 
     
     this professor has done with 
     
     his exam question is to ex- 
     
     pose himself as a thorough- 
     
     going scholar despot, for if 
     
     the students refuse to answer 
     
     the question, that is, if 
     
    

    
     ‘ they refuse to slander China, 
     
     they will fail the exam. 
     
    

    
     _More than expose this prof- 
     
     essor as a dishones-intell- 
     
     ectual and a scholar despot 
     
    
   
   
    
       
     
    
   
   
    
     who-dictates to his studenth 
     
    
   
   
    
     'either you slander PeOple'S‘ 
     
    
   
   
    
     China like I want you to do 
     
     or else you must fail' and 
     
     who teaches us to be dishon- 
     
     est, this exam question exp- 
     
     oses the very nature of the 
     
     imperialist university and 
     
     the purpose it is designed 
     
     to serve, ‘ 
     
     The imperialist university 
     
     teaches us to be able to de- 
     
     bate a question, to prove an 
     
     .argument, to talk any nonses 
     
     nse that it is possible to 
     
     talk. Never is it demanded 
     
     of us that we should stand 
     
     up for principle or that we 
     
     should seek truth from facts 
     
    
   
   
    
     to serve the people. The fir- 
     
    
   
   
    
     st trick played is to claim 
     
     that the world is a matter 
     
     of definition, discussion & 
     
    
   
   
    
     interpretation and that there 
     
     is no such thing as objective 
     
    
   
   
    
     Rahman, Milne, Smitheram, Mc- 
     
     Lellan, Ellison, Love (Harry), 
     
     gharkey, Hennesey, et. a1. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Editor 
     
    
   
   
    
     reality. In this way, the 
     
     professor demands that "rega- 
     
     rdless of your personal view: 
     
     "write a sustematic essay" 
     
     i.e. "prove", "with concrete 
     
     data" that for the People's 
     
     Republic of China "ideology 
     
     is of little consequence. 
     
    

    
     In its name, many contradic- 
     
     tory policies can and have 
     
     been pursued. Ideology only 
     
     lends a cover of legitimacy 
     
     to the underlying pursuit of 
     
     state interests", i.e. China 
     
     is an imperialist country. 
     
    
   
   
    
     contpg-Jo