Canadian Union of Students and Student Unionism - Brian Hutchison - Aug 28-Sept 4, 1968

8/2/2019 Canadian Union of Students and Student Unionism - Brian Hutchison - Aug 28-Sept 4, 1968

1/35

CUS AND STUDENT UNIONISM

,.

Brian Hut.chf.son :Associate Secretary

XXXII CONGRESSUniversity of GuelphGuelph, OntarioAugust 28 - September 4, 1968". ;

340)

Canadian Union o f St;udent;s mUnion canad ienne des etud ian tsSECAETAR1",T: 24.6 Queen ,St i"" "' ,OTTAWA!.. CANACA_ TELEPHQNt=:C09E 61:3; 2:36';"614_ CASL5S:.cUS';'UCE

- _. J ~


2/35

- I -.1 ' ; ' j , : " t ii '

Introduction,""" . , '

This paper represents an attempt to examine Canadian student unionisp with aview to formulating a program of structural and organizational reform which'isconsistent with the expressed, aims of local , provincial and national unions, andwhich takes fully into account the ins t i tu t ional and soc ia l -context in 'whichthey must operate., My approach is select ive. ' That is to say, I have concentrated upon' t.hose questionswhich I regard as par ti cu la r ly s ign i fi can t for the future 'of Canadian'studentunionism, avoiding, insofar as possihle, minor or per iphe ra l i s sue s. My aim hasnot been to devise an immutable formula, but r at he r to suggest a program, ofreform which is firmly grounded in p re se nt reali t ies . . I do not mean to s ugges t,however, tha t I 'have ignored the normative question - in other words, what"ought t t.o be". Implicit in my analysis and prescript ion i s a ca'Ll, for greater"and more' effective involvement of student unions in educational and' soc ia lchange and for the democratization of student unions a t ' a l l 'Leve l .s o,fb:r:gani-zation - local , provincial or,regional and national. 'I do not , ' i t should be noted, ' see these two goals as being in confI'Lc't, Rather,I regard them as essentially COlTIP1 ementary . Certainly the former, wHl, not ber ea liz ed t o any signif icant extent unt i l the' la t te r has been achieved; , Andinasmuch as top-down ' s tructural reform i s not in i t se l f ' suffic ient ' to-producedemocratization, that goal will only, be realized i f s tudent unions address ' ,questions which are highly r' e l.evarrt to the i r members ' l ives , 'namely'- 'i n myview - 4uest ionsof educational and social ' s ignif icance.There are i n ~ l i s country two more or l e ~ s dist inct operative conceptions ofthe student and t he s tudent' union, one represented in pract ice by, Quebecstudent syndicalism and th e o th er exemplified by student unions in the nineremaining provinces.1Student syndicalism defines the student,' a s a young in te l lec tual worker, a'ful l andjrroductdve member of so cie ty . 'H is work Ls v that; of " inte l lec tualapprenticeship." What jus t i f ies his status as ful l cit izen (aside from his 'age) is the,importance of this work for the future of his society. As a workerthe student is ent i t led to r emuneratdcn.Tn 'a form of, a st ipend'(pre-salaire) ,

I have drawn heavily for my characteriaa"tionot'etiudent: syndicalism on apaper prepared for the founding Congress "of UGEQby' Serge J o y a ~ . My poi:-trayal,of t r a d ~ t i o n a l Canadian s t u ~ e n t unionism has'also,been influenced.but to a much leeee extent. by Joyal's analqeie;" '",' , " '

- - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - ~ - - - ._ - - -


3/35

-2 -

free education heing assumed. As a citizen, he has attendant rights and socialresponsibilit ies. The chief instrument for the expression of these rights andthe exerc ise of these responsibilit ies is his student union, his functionallydefined social group in organized form. Student syndicalism is characterizedby a "recognition" that all student problems are merely aspects of nationalproblems, that student problems, particularly the problems of education, arerooted in the existing socio-economic structures and that, as a re su lt, th eirsolution lies in the recasting of these structures in the direction of a morejust and humane society. Students' problems .and educational problems mustalways be defined within the total social context . .The more traditional conception, manifested in .this country by student unionsoutside Quebec, is less easy to characterize, i f only because i t is nowhereapplied in pract ice without some degree of dis tort ion . In i ts pure form,

this "philogophy" defines the student as an unproductive and dependent being, \ ~ h o s e relation to society is' essentially parasit icaL His role in educationis seen as a passive one. He receives an education at the hands of his teachers. His task is to accumulate facts and qual if ications in preparation fora personal, more or less distant, future; his studies are not considered to besocially significant. The student is seen as a citizen-in-training, outside or,on the fringes of active society and devoid of social responsibility. He isdependent upon the goodwill of his parents, the state, or both, for financialassistance. Since his acti vity is not regarded as socially productive, anyfunds he receives from the state are by way of charity.The student is seen as possessing certain privileges, largely confined to thenon-academic sphere. The role of his student union centres around the defenseof these privileges and the servicing of his immediate needs. A rigid l ineof separation is drawn between student problems and social problems, with onlythe former being, considered a legitimate concern of the s tudent union. St.udent problems and social problems are, for practical purposes, assumed to beunrelated. Separation of the student's role as student from the student 'srole as citizen -, if indeed the lat ter role is conceded at all - is thought tobe both pos sIb l e .and desirable. In his capacity as citizen the student mustact as an individual and not as a member of his functionally-determined socialgroup.The two conceptions which I have attempted to sketch are reflected in the existence in this country of two organizations defining themselves as national unionsof s tudents , the Canadian Union of Students (CUS) and l 'Union generale des etudiants du Quebec (UGEQ).UGEQ was founded as a syndicalist student union 'in November of 1964, followingseveral months 'of discussion by a "prOVisional committee". Participating inthe founding Congress were: l 'Association generale des etudiants de l 'Universite Laval, l'Association generale des etudiants, de l 'Universite de Montreal,l'Association generale des etudiants de l 'Universite de Sherbrooke, la F e d e r a ~t i.on des normaliens .du Quebec and fa Federation des Associations desetudiants'des colleges. classiques .du Quebec; Laval , Sherbrooke and Montreal having withdrawn 'from CUSduring August and Syptember Although rising Quebec. nationalism

,j '.,' - , . . ,

,.


4/35

- 3 -

;';was unques td onabl yvan. important factor lear!ing to the founding of an independent", union of Quebec students, i t was perhans or secondary i];)portance. At the rootof UGEQ's forrnat i on "as i t s rounders' re ject ion of the theory and rrrnc t i ce ofstudent unionisn represented by CUS and i t s local nembers . They viewer! thestudent not as passive, dependent; anr' unprorluctive, but as a fu l l and activeci t izen of society. In l ight of this view, the act ivi t ies of CUS and i ts,members appeared to then t r iv ia l , self-centrerl and basical ly i r re levant . Theysaw in the syndical is t al ternat ive an effect ive means whereby s tudent s couldconfront their problems. Inasmuch as the i r basic conception of the student andstudent unionism was in fundamental confl ic t with tha t expressed by CUS, theysaw no further, basis for co-opera tion with student unions in other provinces.Since i t s founding UGEQ has grown to include a ll of Quebec 'sEngl ish-speakinguniversi t ies but one (Bishop's). CUS has had no Quebec members ,since 1066.As indicated above, UGEQ identif ies Quebec as a nation and i t s e l f as a ,nat ionalunion of students. The "nation" is defined geographica lly by Quebec's provincial boundaries and cultural ly, social ly, economically and l inguis t ica l ly bythe national (French) majority. The English-speaking population i s seen as anational minority within th e nation of Quebec so defined. ,This concept ofnation has not, for the most par t , been taken to imply statehood. To th is pointin t ime, UGEQ has had no stated policy in r-egar-d to the pol i t i ca l (const i tut ional)s tatus of Quebec. Duri.ng the .conung year UGEQ will conduct a referendum on the"national" question among i t s members. The resul ts of tha tv refer endum w ill presumably serve as th e basis for i ts const i tut ional policy.Over the las t two or three Years, the conceptual gap between UGEQ's memberunions and the member unions of CUS has narrowed considerably as the ' l a t t e rhave reassessed, and modified the i r basic assumptions. Nevertheless, t h e re '' remain important ' theoret ical and pract ical differences.In view of this si tuat ion. I have by and large confined myself in th is paper toa discussion of student unionism as it has developed in the nine predominantlyBngId shvspeaki.ng provinces. My use of the t erms Canada, Canadian an" nat ionalshould be under st ood in this, l ight . Whenever I employ the, tern "Canadian" inreference to student unions, .I am in fact referr ing t o student, unions - whetherlocal, provincial or national outside ,Quebec, "" ,"

, / ;;,: '

, .'",., '., .;


5/35

- 4 -

The Local Union

The nature of student government act1v1ty has, during r ecen t yea rs , changed insuch a way as to dep rive the very term "student governr.1ent" of i ts descriptiveforce. At one time students' councils confined themselves almost entirely todecision-making and action within th e sphere of activity in which they have cometo be accorded more or less exclusive jurisdiction - the, so-called "extracurricular" sphere. Their act i.vdt i es could therefore be legitimately describedas "governmental".2Over the last few years, however, students' councils have 'gradually assumed a"pressure group" character, attempting to effect change in areas (relating'chiefly to education) over which they have no direct control. This is not tosay that the governmental role has been abandoned, but rather that a newdimension has been added and that in r.1any cases this new dimension has assumedprimacy - although i t should be noted that verbal commitment to reform activityhas rarely been r ef le ct ed in a commitment of hUr.1an and financial resources.The emergence of pressure group activity as a f ea tu re o f s tudents ' councilprogramming has been accompanied by subtle changes in approach t.oward the moretraditional functions of 'student government. On many campuses, the students'council has begun to playa less direct role in th e organization o f " socia l"activit ies, this function having taken over by voluntary organizations or bystudent government at the college, faculty or residence level. Although s tudents' councils continue to devote considerable time to the distribution offunds among various ,student groups and organizations, this process is becomingincreasingly systematized, less ad hoc, and therefore less time-consuming.Moreover, at a number of u n i v e r s i t i ~ - particularly th e larger ones routine program administration is being turned OVer to full-time employees,thereby freeing councillors fo r more creative forms of activity.On some campuses students have been'granted partial or conditional s e l f ~government with respect to "social conduct". However, such cases are 'suff i c ient ly rare as to be insignificant; student government does not play a majorrole in this area. Even in the few instances where'this generalization does

2 It shouZd be noted. however, that one of powers normaZZy associated withgovernmentaZ function. taxation. has aZways been somewhat circumscribed inthe case of student government. As a ruZe. increases in counciZ fees aresubject to Board of Governors (or. rareZy. Senate) approvaZ. and coZZectionis dependent upon administrative cooperation.;3 As a metter of convenience. the term lIuni ver si t yll is used throughout thispaper to refer,generaZZy to post-secondary educationaZ institutions.


6/35

- 5 "

t apply, students' councils have not generally been given autho ri ty to esta,JiSh or al ter regulations, but have served, in effect , as th e enforcement":d/or judicial arm of the d e c i s i o n - m ~ c i n g body vested with tha t authori ty .Urrivers i ty adrrini.st.rat i ons have, on a number of campuses, recently begun toassumeresponsibili ty for act ivi t ies and services formerly controlled by stu.dent government (e.g., housing registr ies, counselling services, athletic andcultural programs). This tendency, while perhaps not widespread at the presenttime, seems likely to gain strength. Its probable effects upon the characterand focus o f studen t government act iV ity a re obvious.The following excerpt from a 1%4 CUS publication entitled "Your EducationCommittee - Whflt Can I t Do?" bears vivid witness to the manner in which students 'councils I perception of th eir r ole has changed during .the past four yearS.Significantly, the quoted section appears - almost as an afterthought ,following more than eight pages of program suggestions.

"H. To Prepare Briefs:Some Eduaation Committees se e i t as their funation to attempt toimprove th e lo t o f their students by investigating aonditionson their oWn aampus, and, having aompiled t he ir r es ul ts , presentin g reaommendations to t h e a d mi n is tr at i on . This ahanges th e roleo f th e aommittee from a s t r i at l y disaussion forum to a body whiahstands for a partiaular group o f opinions. This step should be'cons-idered aarefuUy for t he d ea is io n oarx-iee definite "politiaal"impliaations ."Areas that might be aonsider>ed, onae you have decided tobeaome a pressure group o f this kind, inalude suah things aslibrary serviaes, Pl'OCiildure a t th e Book Store, coei: o f mealsand th e quality o f food a t th e university eafetei-ia, and so on. 11

The Duff-Berdahl report on university government in Canada, following i ts release in 1966, acted as a potent catalyst in the process of student goverluaentre-orientation. PUblication of that report innucedstudents, beginning chieflylQith'students' counc il lo rs , to assess crit ically their role in universitydecision-making and setved for some as a springboard to cr i t ical analySis o fCanadian educational aims, practices and institutions in general.Despite th e assumption of a pressure group'role , students' councils have, forthe most part, continued to operate in the el i t i s t fashion which charac t er i zedtheir strictly governmental period. As long as councils acted only with reference to areas in which their authority was more or less f inal , activestudent body support for their policies was unnecessary; taci t acceptance,indifference or grudging consent - in short" non-opposition - wou ld do jus tas well. Moreover, since most council decisions were essentially t r ivial ,the mass of students could, hardly be expected to be greatly troubled by remoteness from, and lack of involvement in students ' council decision-making.However, the el i t i s t approach, tolerable in a sandbox government, is totally


7/35

, ~ n a p p r o p r i a t e to a body attempting to influence events beyond i ts di r ec t control.,Any pressure group is dependent for i t s effectiveness upon active and demonst rable membership support for i t s programs. Elitism and mass support are unl ikely bedfellows.Notwithstanding recent changes in university government, the student remainsbasically powerless in re la t ion to the univers i ty . University administratorshave, over the l a s t two or three years, developed an interesting penchant fordiscussing "the relationship between students and the university." Understandably, this dichotomy has been poorly received by students. Neverthelessi ts descript ive validi ty must be conceded. Students are "at" rather than"part of" the university. They are at best consumers of the universi ty 's waresand at worst unfinished human goods in the f inal stages of processing, packaging,inspection and cert i f icat ion for safety.I t has been suggested that the r ec en t add it ion of students to various decisionmaking bodies wi thin th e universi t yha s altered th e s tu de nt' s s ta tu s, th at heis no longer without power. I would argue, however, the change i s nor e apparent than real . In numerical terms, the extent of student "part ic ipation", i sgenerally insignif icant , part icular ly a t th e hig he r levels of decision-making.As a rule, the numer i ca l strength o f stu den t representation i s inversely relatedto a given body's posit ion in the decision-making hierarchy, and also, thoughless porfectly, to the impact of that body's decisions on the l ives of students.Consequently, under all but the most unusual circumstances th e v otin g behaviourof student representat ives i s of no consequence to the decision made. Studentshave l i t t l e more than a voice - and a rather weak voice at tha t .Voice would, of course, take on considerable importance - and voting strengthlose a ll meaning - i f the basic interests of those groups represented in thedecision-making process (primar ily s tudents , faculty and administrators) werefundamentally the same. Such, however , i s not the case. Although groupin terests will obviously coincide on certain specif ic questions. it is naiveto assume identi ty of interests as a general phenomenon.By virtue of their role, administrators tend to a tt ach g re at importance toorder, s tabi l i ty , adnmi.s t r at. ive convenience, inst i tu t ional prest ige andconspicuous growth (physical plant , f ie lds of study, etc . ) . Any program ofreform designed to further ends other than these has l i t t l e appeal for administrators, and may be perceived as threatening, part icular ly i f the program has administrative implications. Moreover, since administrators haveachieved at leas t some measure of success within the framework of the sta tusquo, they a re unl ik el y to see cause for more than minor change.While the in terests of faculty are less liJeely th an tho se of administratorsto be antagonist ic ,to student in terests , there are nevertheless importantquestions on which fundamental disagreenent i s to be expected. For example,the development of "academic" programs which transcend special t ies and disciplines in an attempt to overcome the increas ing "f ragnentat ion of knowleoge",will in a l l l ikelihood meet with strong facul ty resistance. Whateveracademic sta tus (and financial securi ty) a facul ty m ~ n b e r possesses derives,af'ter al l , from "achievement" wi thin a par t i cuLar discipl ine . A challengeto th e disciplinary structure Ls therefore a challenge .to f'acu l ty status.

._------------------- ,


8/35

- 7 -

From the reform point of view, "student part ic ipat ion" as we now know it i s, further rendered ineffect ive by the ex i s t.ence , for each decision-making body,of certain historical ly-established terms of reference - either expl ic i t ormerely understood - and of a pa rt ic ul ar r ol e in the operation and maintenanceof the university as i t is . The terms of reference, although they may includethe re-examinat ionofli" techniques", are unlikely to extend to the re -examinat ionof basic premises. And to the extent that decision-making bodies are preoccupied with their routine functions, they are incapable of. stepping back andexamining in a radical ( that is , fundamental) way the ins t i tu t ion as a wholeand their own place within i t .The nearly universal p ra ctic e o f "cIos ed!' decision-making gives r i se to a dualproblem by isolat ing student representatives from those they are expecten torepresent. On .the one hand, student representatives cannot be held responsiblefor their actions, because' the i r "consti tuentst are derri ed knowledg e 'of thoseactions. And on the other hand, the abi l i ty of s tudent. representat ives toinfluence decisions is l imited by t he ir i n ab i li ty to appeal to the i r "cons t i tu en ts " fo r support.-My purpose .i.n outlining those factors which l imit the impact o f "stu den t par t i -cipation" .i,n i t s usual form has no t been to disparage this development 'o r to 'suggest that such part ic ipat ion is without value. I have, however, attemptedto demonstrate that the essentia l pos it io n o f the s tudent within. the universi tyhas not been fundamentally altered by the advent of "stud ent; par t ic ipat ion" , .and that "student participation" as currently conceived cannot, in and ofi t se l f , be counted upon to produce major advance in terms of subs tan tive"un iversity reform. The student does not yet p l aya significant role , ei ther. direct ly or through his representat ives, in shaping his educational: environment. Those few choices which he does make (e .. g . , courses) continue to befrom among alternatives formulated by others.I f "student part icipat ion" has fai led-to yield significant reforms, direc tstudents' council act ion has.been.almost eaually unproductive. The reformact ivi t ies of students' councils tend .t o follow a de fi ni te pa tt ern:

1) preparation by an ad hoc (executive-dominated) committeeof a brief .which outlines a ser ies of. proposal and presents ' support ing evidence and argumentation;. 2) council rat i f icat ion of the resul tin(l brief;3) pr eserrtat ion of the brief to the app ropr ia te universi ty 'authori t ies, usually high-level admini st ra to rs , bu t

o c c a ~ i o n a l l y the university Senate or Board of Governors; .4) meetings between the "authori t ies" and. the presidentor a small group of counc il lo rs (usua lly members of the

executive) for purposes 'of "discussing" the brief .


9/35

//- 8 -

This approach is based upon the implic i t assumption that administrators (facul tyand Board members) are "reasonable", basical ly disinterested persons, and tha ttheir response wil l t he re fo re be determi.ned on purely rat ional grounds. Thisas sumpt i on is , of course, untenable. As I have a t t enpt ed to suggest above,vested interests do, in fact , exist and are, norecver , a potent factor indetermining the responses of decision-makers to proposals for change. Everystudents' council in Canada has no doubt had the exper ience o f presenting tothe universi ty administration carefully reasoned, impeccably documented and in tentionally "modest" proposals, only to have them rej ected on the basis of in credibly flimsy, and obviously past facto, rat ional izat ions - i f , indeed,"reasons" for the reject ion are given at a l l .Cavalier responses of th is sort are made possihle - and encouraged - by thestudents I counc i l t s posit ion of powerLes sriess vis-a-vis the universi ty administ rat ion. What appears a t f i r s t blush to be a bargaining relat ionship is , infact, a re la t ionship between supplicant and master. Such a relat ionship hardlydemands a r easoned response from the master .Proposals for change carry with then an element of implied cri t ic ism directedtoward those r espons ib le for the existing s ta te of affairs - a l l the more soi f t he p roposa ls are advanced by a body e xte rn al to the dec i s i.cn-maki.ng apparatus.Insofar as decision-makers are sensi t ive to this implied cri t icism, the i r basicincl inat ion will be to re jec t such p ropo sa ls , s in ce acceptance would amount toan admission of fai lure or inadequacy as decision-makers. This phenomenon hasobvious bearing upon the extent to which universi ty authori t ies are recept iveto the "humble pleadings" o f s tu de nt s' councils.Lack of active s tudent support is unquestionably the chief ,source o f s tu dent s'council weakness in dealings with university dec is ion-make rs . Apparen tly re -garding non-oppOSition as an adequate form of s tuuen t " suppor t" , most councilshave consistently failed to seek mass student involvement in the developmento f pro posa ls, d es pite compel ling grounds, both democratic and s t ra tegic , fordoing so. University dec i s i on-maker-s are, of course, well aware of th issi tuat ion and, as one would expect, have taken ful l advantage of the pol i t i ca li solat ion of students' councils from the i r constituents.I t becomes increasingly apparent that t radi t ional forms of s tudent organ iza t ionand action a re inapp ropr ia te to present ci. rcums t ances. Students I councils are,without excep tion , committed to some measure of educational and social reform,and, as a resul t , to pressure group act ivi ty. Howevar , in playing out thisrole, they have continued to operate in t h manner of a governing e l i t e ,thereby conder.ming themselves to an unending succession of fai lures interruptedonly occasionally by marginal ga i.ns , Councils have fai led to recop;nize tha twhatever bargaining' strength t hey pos se ss derives u l t i.mat.eLy from tho j .n dis pensibi l i ty of students to t he educa ti onal process and from the i r consequentabi l i ty to hal t that process by a withc1rawal of "services."


10/35

- 9 -

Students ' councils, by vir tue of their pol i t i ca l isolat ion from the mass of s tu-dents, are thus cut off from the i r only source of potentia l strength. This s i -tuation will pers is t unt i l such time as s tu.lcnts ' council me-thods become pol i -t ical rather than'bureaucratic, unt i l the student association becomes a studentunion, and unti l council proposals become student demands. Such a t ransfornat ionwould have profound affects upon the position of students ,- acting through the i runion - with in the university and .soc i e'ty , Negotiations, whe ther with universi tyor governmental authori t ies , woul dvtake on a significance which they have hithertolacked. The t ra d it ional s it ua ti on, whereby th e s tudent s! council address eshopeful (and often naive) requests to the holders of power, would give way toone in which two part ies of at leas t comparable pol i t ica l s tr ength ent er int.oa bargaining relat ionship. The bargaining s tr en gt h o f one party would re s tupon forma), authority and attendant decision-making prerogatives, while t ha tof the other would derive from abil i ty to disrupt a vi ta l social process.As expressed in this fo rmulati on , t he s tuuent un ion 's pol i t ica l s i tuat ionbears striking resemblance to that of a labour union.To this point in time few ( i f any) councils have made significant attemptsto break wi th their e l i t i s t past . In i t i a l e ffo rts in this direction musttherefore be undertaken essent ial ly without benefi t of precedent, suggestingthe need for an experimental and adaptable approach.Any student union aspiring to pOli t ical potency must seek to engage the wholeof i t s membership in c er ta in union act iv i t ies which have, unt i l now, remained, the more or less exclusive p re se rv e o f those involved in , or as so ci.a t ed with,"student government." Chief among these act ivi t ies are 's tudy and analysis ofeducational and other social problems, defini t ion of al ternat ives to the statusquo (or prevailing draf t ) , formulation of specif ic programs of reforTI, consideration of strategic and tac t ica l questions, and f inal ly , e ff o rt s d ir ec ted towardthe real izat ion of concrete demands. The goal of pol i t i ca l effectivenesscanno t be reconciled with the incestuous insulari ty so characterist ic of "student government" as it has developed in Canada. A decisive reorientat ion isrequired.Students I councils cannot create' a si tuat ion of widespread social concern andengagement by simple legisla t ive decree. However, by exposing students toanalyses and proposals which represent a fundamental challenge to the statusquo and i t s supporting rhetor ic , they can induce s tu de nts to examine certainfeatures of their educational and social environment which, withou t consc iousreflect ion, they have gradually come to accept as "natura l" and therefore inviolable. The aim of such a p rogran should not be to s ecune student " ident i -fication" with the end-products of council ' decision-making (although tha t maybe the resul t ) , but rather to stimulate discussion of educational and socialissues among the greatest possible number of students and to encourage students to come to grips, on an individual and co l Lec tdve basis , with the problems which the share by virtue of a common social role ann l i fe si tuat ion.An approach designed merely to ' ' 'sell ' ' council proposa ls to an unthinkingstudent body is not only questionable on democratic grounds but also potent ial ly disastrous from a strategic and tac t ica l point of view. In presenting a posit ion, councils should attempt to convey not only the f inal


11/35


12/35

- 11 -

5. Publications List. Distrihution to the union membership of a l i s t of puhlications - chiefly papers devoted to educational and social analysis - available on request from th e council.6. Orientation Programs focussing upon discussion of the nature of the student's educational and social role. Attenpts should be made to relate discussion to the student's previous educational- experiences and to his ex -pectations concerning the universi ty , -7. Seminars, Symposia, Teach-ins.8, Weekend Retreats. These events \ ~ i 1 1 , in the main, at t ract persons alreadyconcerned with educational and social issues. They should therefore beviewed as a means of developing cadres for future educational and organizing activity on the campus.9. Continuing Seminar or Study Groups._ In add iti on to serving as cadres,

such groups would hopefUlly become a source of advanced thought .10. Curriculum Study. Conduct ing a systematic study of th e university curriculum based upon group discussions involving larger numbers of studentsrather than upon s tat ic questionnaire responses.11. Course Unions . Encouraging the formulation and continued act ivi ty ofcourse and faculty unions (e.g. sociology, classics, educat ion) as vehiclesof educational reform. It should be remembered however, that such organizations, particularly i f they becone isolated from th e general studentunion, can serve to reinforce the existing trend toward increasing academicspecialization and compartmentalization of knOWledge.12. Council Members. Freeing council members from rout ine adminis trat ive tasksin order that they may undertake educational and organizing act ivi ty.Council members should be encouraged to -develop formal and informal mechanisms for discussing educat ional issues with their constituents.-13. Campaign Grants. By providing campaign grants, unions could ensure thateach candidate for council possessed the necessary resources to presenthis p la tfo rm to the electorate in a technically adequate fashion .14. Campus Polit ical Parties. I t is frequently suggested - not withou t somejust i f icat ion - that the emergence of independent student pol i t ical partieswould have th e effect of estab li sh ing council elections as contests basedupon pol i t ical rather than personality distinctions an.l would produceincreased s tudent awareness and understanding of educational and socialproblems. However, there appear to be few practical means by which students' councils can encourage the deVelopment of parties likely to produce th e desired resul ts. Cer ta in ly the legislative approach has l i t t leto recommend i t . While councils could ensure th e development of a par-tysystem merely by requiring that each candidate be identified with a party,the organizations forned in response to such a requirement are as l ikely


13/35

- 12 -

to be based upon personal as ideological affinity and would in many casesamount to l i t t le more than slates. Although the int roduct ion of "proport ional representa tion" (whereby seats a re d is tr ibu ted among the competingparties in proport ion to their share of the popular vote) would tend toreduce such risks, i t would also, by eliminating the constituency basis ofcouncil representation, mili tate against effective educational and organizing work on the part of council members. The legislat ive introductiono fa party system (with or without proportional representation) is l ikelyto result in the formation of parties which are polit ically ar t i f ic ia l ,characterized more by style than ideological perspective and representinga scatter of poli t ical notions rather than a coherent poli t ical program.In short, parties formed out of constitutional necessity will almostcertainly' possess a t r ivial , sand-box character. Mass-bas ed part ies or"poli t ical movements" (organizations engaging in several forms of poli t icalaction, ' e lectoral act ivi ty being only one of them) representing clearlydefinable and dist inct polit ical orientations will not arise in responseto legislative action unless the necessary condit ions for their existenceare already present - in which case they wou Id have arisen "spontaneously."With this in mind, councils should faci l i ta te the development of poli t icalparties (movements) by providing s tandard grants to such groups, but shouldnot introduce a party system by legislat ive means. Council grants tostudent poli t ical parties should be contingent only upon their abil i ty todemonstrate a stipulated minimum membership and should provide funds foreducational and organizing act ivi ty as well as election campaigning.

* * * *

The chief structural barrier to mass involvement in student union affairs l iesin the large base units of s tudent o rgan izat ion - generally colleges orfaculties. Participatory forms of decision-making are inconceivable withinthis framework. Moreover, the alternatives are not promising. Organizationalunits based upon place of r e s i d ~ n c e would be impossible to create since manystudents - of't en. a substantial majbrity - do not live in "communal" residences.As a basis for student organization, academic program or departmental affi l ia-tion, d esp ite certain attractions, i s d ef ic ient in at least two respects:1) intellectual narrowing and academic professionalism may be promoted by anaccentuation of d iv is ions along disciplinary lines; 2) f i r s t year studentsare not generally committed to an academic specialty and, as a result , couldnot be organized within a departmental framework. Decision-making by referendum cannot be regarded as a substitute for decentralized structures basedupon small organizational units. Referenda do record student opinion, but'inasmuch as they provide no mechanism for direct student involvement in study,discussion and debate of the issue at hand, that opinion is as l ikely to bebased upon ~ g n o r a n c e as understanding. I t would appear than, that adequatestudent union structures cannot be developed under present condi tions , andthat future possibi l i t ies in this regard will be defined largely by thestructural and organizational evolution of the univ ersity ~ ~


14/35

- 13 -

The ultimate goal of student union efforts with respect to internal reorganization should be a s it ua ti on in which students (that is , all students) areorganized for purposes of stunying their problems, determining their needs,formulating demands and, as necessary, manifesting thei r d issat is fac tion withthe status quo or their support for specific demands. Inunediate demands woulnpresumably be formulated in reference to long-range objectives and their realization would be seen as but one step in a continuing struggle t oward eventualrealization of those objectives. DeRands should be negotiable without beingformless, since negotiation will playa central role in student union effortsto effect change. Only when negotiations are hopelessly deadlocked, whendifferences are irreconcilable, should manifestations in general, ann st r ikeaction in part icu la r, be considered. At that point, however, they becometheonly recourse apart, that is , from an acceptance of defeat.Insofar as student unions are dependent for their very existence upon.the, .continued wil lingness of university administ rations to collect union fees,they remain vulnerable to administrative pressures. In vi ew of this sourceof weakness, student unions should perhaps consiner seeking government legislation which would 'provf.de for a guaranteed "check-off" arrangement.


15/35

- 14 -

Provincial and National Unions

During the per iod prior to 1967, CUS was organized - at least formally - ona regional basis. The four regions - Ontario, th e Maritimes, Quebec and the'West - remained, throughout their existence, rather obscure appendages to theCUS decision-making and programming apparatus. Their role within the unionwas at all times ambiguous and ill-defined. As a resul t , they never becamesubstantially more than forums for rambling discussion and somewhat pointlessdebate. In effecting their dissolution, th e 1967 Congress merely gave officialrecognition to what had, in fact, already taken place. The Western Region wasmore or less abandoned following th e 1966 Congress. The Quebec Region, whichhad been st.ead i l y shrinking since the formation of UGEQ in 1964, ceased toexist when ,the remaining two members, Bishop"s and McGill, withdrew from CUSin th e fall of 1966. The Atlantic Region was also showing signs of decay.Collapse of the Regions cOincided with, and to some extent impelled, th eemergence of independent provincial unions. In November 1966, the BritishColumbia Assembly of Students was formed. During the course of 1966-67',Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick followed suit ; Finally, inMarch, 1967 the Ontario 'Region reconstituted i tself as the Ontar io Union ofStudents, severing i ts formal t ies with the national union.Since CUS had neither planned nor anticipated the formation of provincialunions, no possibility existed for their development within a national framework. They were, by definition, structurally independent of CUS. And so theyremain, the desirability of this arrangement never having been seriouslyquestioned but, on the con tr ary, quietly and uncriticallY assumed. Thequestion of structural relationships between national and provincial unionswas ignored (and therefore begged) by th e 1967 Congress and by the 1966-67Board of Direc tors in i ts report on the membership, structure and financing ofCUS. Both were content merely to recommend that CUS "do everything in i tspower to support their (the provincial unions') speedy development" - presumably through moral support and technical assistance.Although j us ti fi ca ti on i s rarely considered necessary, th e rationale for independent provincial organizations generally takes the following form:

' I ) In terms of the development of Canadian student unionism,membership of a given unive rs it y in a provincial unionis preferable to isolation.2) The recently-established universities are basicallyprovincial in orientation and their students aretherefore much more favourably disposed toward provincial unions than they would be toward a nationalprovincial package.


16/35

- 15 -

3) Local unions at, the smaller insti tutions, many of themnewly-established, are hard-pressed financially due toth e high fixed costs involved in providing certainessential programs (e.g. , a campus newspaper). Althoughmembership in a provincial union is a imos t certainlywithin ' their financial means, membership in a nationalunion or dual, national-provincial membership may notbe . Given a choice between dual membership and .i.soLation they might therefore be inclined to choose th el a t t e r .

4) Members of provincial unions, as a resul t of 'exposureto schools with dual membership, will be almostcertain to JOJ.n the national union "when they becomeready for i t" - f inancially and otherwise.Despite a certain superf icial appeal, the case for independent provincial unionsis basically weak. Even i f i t is true that the 'orientation' of certain LocaI 'unionsi s e ssen ti al ly provincial, surely that does not in i tself jus t i fy an arrangementwhich can only serve to perpetuate provincial (that is , narrow) attitudes andoutlooks. Unless parochialism is in some way perceived as laudable or virtuous,i ts prevalence indicates, on the contrary, a need to create conditions whichfacil i tate rather than inhibit the broadening of conceptual horizons. Smalllocal unions are undoubtedly subject to severe financial constraints as a directresult of limited size and consequent inabil i ty to achieve economies of scale. 4Inasmuch as these constraints may effectively prec lude their membership in provincial and/or national organizat ions " this prob l en (to wh i ch I. shall returnlater) must be recognized and dealt wi th by those organizations. For the pre-sent i t is sufficient to note that the establi shment and maintenance of independent provincial unions is but one possible approach to this problem -and a rather unsatisfactory approach at that . Finally, i t is d if fic ult to conceive of conditions - other than financial - under which a local union is"ready" for membership in a provincial union hut somehow-unfi t for membershipin a national organization.The case for independent prOVincial unions would be much more convJ.ncing wereprOVincial and national organizations simply performing identical functionson different scales. Such however is not the case. In fac t , a division oflabour has been established - not altogether consciously - between the nationaland provincial levels of organization. For example, the burden of research

4 The term "economies of scale" gi'ves expression to the fact that in certainoperations costs do not increase in proportion to the level o f "output" oractivity; in other words, that per "unit " cos ts decl'ease as the scale, ofoperation increases. This phenomenon is in part attributable to the exist-ence of certain COsts which are constant or "fixed", whatever the scale ofoperation. Economies of scale explain, f or example, why the cos t o f,pro-ducing 5000 copies of a campus newspaper is not ten times greater than thecost of producing 500.


17/35

- 16 -

and information has fallen to the national union, while provincial unions - tothe extent that they have become organizationally and financially viable - haveconcentrated their efforts upon inf luencing the policies and actions of provincial governments. Although allocation of resources and functions between thetwo levels has not been fully rationalized, they have nevertheless come tocomplement rather than compete against each other, with provincial unions beingin large measure parasi t ical upon the national union.Advocates of provincial union independence base t he ir posi ti on upon t he ques tionable, usually unstated, assumption that s trong provincia l unions can developunder conditions of s tructura l i so la tion from each other and from a nationalorganization. But organizational and hence polit ical s tr ength require financial solvency for their development. In provinces with a large student population (e.g. Ontario and British COlumbia) a modest per capita levy is sUfficient to provide the necessary funds. This is no t true however of unions witha small potential membership (e.g. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick anrtNova Scotia). Unless these unions are willing to rely upon government largesseor corporate generosi ty as the f inancial bas is of their existence - realizingthe pol i t ical limitations such dependence might entail - they are condemned toperpetual weakness. Clearly, the development of strong provincial unions as ageneral phenomenon requires redistribution of resources such as can be achievedonly through th e medium o f a national organ i za.t i on.I t can be argued - although rather unconvincingly - that the inc reas ing provincialization of education has eliminated the need for a national student organization or, at the very least , markedly reduced i ts significance. This view hasthe effect of 1) extracting educational inst i tut ions from their social context,2) ignoring problems which transcend provincial boundaries, and 3) assuming thebasicimmutability of present constitutional arrangements.Educational institutions are shaped by both internal and externa l forces, thela t ter being in the long run vastly more impor tant than the former. The natureof our schools and universities has been in large measure determined by ther'equi.rements of business and industry (hardly respecters of provincial boundaries) with government f requent ly act ing as their agent. The educational systemserves corporate interests not only by providing skilled manpower but also byinculcating - for the most part indirectly - values, attiturles and a view ofman in society which a,re appropr ia te to the corporate milieu. In view of thissi tuation, a provincial orientation stands condemned as altogether too narrow.Similarly, ' the financing of education cannot be dealt with on a purely provincial basis . Rather, educational financing must be considered in l ight ofg e n e ~ a l social prior i t ies , for which purpose a national Perspective is required.The feasibil i ty of cooperative effort is determined by the ex tent to which thepotential cooperators face common p r o b l e ~ s under more or less identical social,pOlitical and economic conditions. The objective basis for a s trong nat iona lunion of students within English Canada - that is , embracing the nine Englishspeaking provinces - becomes .immedi.a.teIy apparent when this cr i ter ion isapplied. Although dist inct ive regional, provincial and local characterist icscannot be 'denied or discounted, the points of divergence tend to be super-

___.''n _


18/35

- 17 -

ficial whereas the similarities tend to be basic. 5 For example, educationalobjectives and practices do not vary substantially - at least in their essentialaspects - from one region or province to another. On the contrary, a Nova'Scotia education is , in terms of both form and content, virtual ly indistinguishable from an Ontario, a Saskatchewan or a British Columbia education.That is to say, the situation of a student in one province is not quali tat i vely different from that of a student in any other province. This fundamentalsameness, in education as in other fields, does not, however, extend to Quebec.Returning to the education example, Quebec possesses an educational systemwhich, having developed uncler the inf luence of certain historical forces notpresent in English-Canada, is , in many respects, distinctive.The basically uniform situation of s tudents throughout English Canada perRitsextensive pooling of resources at the national level - with the resul t thatprojects beyond the capabilities of anyone local (or provincial) union can bereadily undertaken. Although unions at very large universities could undoubtedly carry out research and education programs of major proportions onthe basis of their own resources, this is certainly not true of most localunions. The national and, to a lesser extent, provincia l organizations therefore have the effect of reducing resource disparities between local unions ofdiffering sizes and, in the case of th e national union, between large and smallprovincial associations. I t follows that the benefit s o f membership in anational (o r provinc ia l) organizat ion are proport iona te ly greater for the smallschools than for the large. The frrrme'r area, in e ffe ct, being subsidized bythe la t ter . Which is as i t shou l d be. The size of a given local union is ,after al l , a matter of historical accident rather than, a reflect ion of i tsmembers I virtues or failings. Resource equalization is essential i f Canadianstudents are to move together in the struggle for educational and social reform.And failure to move together may, in the end, mean failure to move at al l .Organization on a nat iona l basis subs t an t i al ly reduces duplication of act ivi tyand, in doing so, promotes th e efficient use of total resources. This effectis particularly marked in the fields of theoretical development, research,information and membership education. For example, research or ana lysi scarried out on one campus and disseminated ,through th e national union can renderunnecessary, or at least simplify, parallel work elsewhere. Similarly, a studyconducted at the nat iona l level ' can in effyct replace several provincial ornumerous l ocal s tudi es . Obviously, however, division of labour along theselines can be extensive only if'a11 members of the national union operatewithin a rather homogeneous educational and social environment.The thesis that while the national union has a def in it e rol e to play in suchareas as research, communications, and policy development, the actual achievement of educational and social objectives is dependent solely upon local and

5 At the p r o v i n c i a ~ and r e g i o n a ~ ~ e v e ~ one such s i m i ~ a r i t y is the presenceof a French-speaking minority.


19/35

obTheand

- 18 -

provincial efforts, has, over the past two years, come to be treated asvir tually a self-evident truth. Although the claim is not without somej ective basis, i t nevertheless represents' a dangerous overs impLicat i on ,increasing incidence of constitutional buck-passing between the federalprovincial levels of government indicates i t s inadequacy as a strategicassumption. The fate Df recent efforts tD reduce Dr prevent in cr ea se s intuitiDn and res idence fees i l lustrates the prDblem: the federal governmentdisclaims responsibility, while provincial authDrities decry federal hoardingDf tax revenues.The s it ua ti on is equally corifus ed with respect to other aspects of educazi.cna.Ifinancing and in such fields as housing, "sDcial welfare" and economic planning.It becomes increasingly c le ar t ha t pDl iti ca l effectiveness in these and otherareas presupposes a simultaneous assault upon bDth levels Df government involving the 'presentatiDn of ccncr ete proposal s for joint federal-provincialact.ion, Such propcsal s must obvi ousl y be made in l ight of a closely-definedpDsition on the status of Quebec and Dn constitutiDnal arrangements in general- questiDns which, in th e past, CUS has shDwn great reluctance to address ina systematic and comprehensive way. So much so, that one might well ask whetherthe eagerness with which CUS and i ts member unions have "recognized" the defacto pre-eminence of provincial authority does no t ref lect a desire to avo i dsuch questions by minimizing the importance Df federal decision-making insofaras the union's pol i t ical obj ectives are concerned. As. long as we can achieve'our goals by actiDn a t the provincial level, - or SD the argument gDes - weneedn't concern ourselves with the "Quebec prDblem" Dr such cDnstitutionalniceties as the federal-provincial "division of powers."Over the years, CUS has conSistently allowed i tself tD be carried along in thecDnstitutional drift , - regardless Df t he d ir ec tion that dri f t appears to betaking implicitly accepting - i f We are to judge by i t s actions - bDth theexisting provisions of the British NDrth America Act and whatever interpretationof the Act is currently in vogue. This "non-posi t ronr' must not be maintained no t only because, the cons td tu t i.onal question is Df fundamental importance tothe country's future development but alsD because, as I have suggested abDve,our ostrich pos tur e has crippled Canadian s t u ~ . e n t unionism as a pol i t ical fcr ce ,We must attempt to define the character Df Canada and .of Quebec and tD establisha clear policy in l ight .of that analysis. We must ask oirrselves whether Canadais not, in fact, a bi-national state , a n d ~ i f i t is , whether that bi-nationalcharacter .shDuld not be translated into polit ical and cDnstitutional real i ty ;indeed, whether our cDnstitutiDn'should nDt.be re-negotiated as between twonations. We must ask whether the develDpment not Dnly Df Quebec, but also ofEnglish-Canada, is not being' stunted by qUixotic efforts tD preserve the i l lu-sion of Quebec as a province "comme les au t r es"; whether .th e fragmentationof English-Canada which these e ffDrts have prDduced - and will apparentlycontinue to produce - will not, in effect, guarantee the maintenance andfurther progressiDn Df our econDmic, pDlitical and cultural subservience tothe United States.

- - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - ~


20/35

- 19 -

Three concrete proposals' emerge from the foregoing analysis:. 1) That CUS and th e provincial unionsbe brought together within the'frame-work o f a single organization such

that membership in th e appropriateprovincial organization follo ws frommembership in th e national u nion andi s not possible on any other basis.MembErs would pay a single levy tot he n at io na l u nion and th e provincialorganizations would be f ina nc ed withfunds obtained in t h i s manner, theprovincial u nions h avin g t h e s m ~ e s tstudent popuZation base (and there-fore fewest members) receiving, ona per capita basis a greater amountthan th e large unions. Specialarrangements would have to be madefor members located in provinceswhere a provincial union remainsfo r th e present unnecessary (e.g.Newfoundland and Prince EdwardIsland) .

(The alternative approach to integration - transformation of CUSinto a federation of provincial unions - has l i t t le to recommendi t . Such a structure would, by i t s very nature, militate againstconcerted national action, since, fo r example, provincial repre-sentatives would almost certainly have to refer proposals forpoli t ical action back to thei r respective memberships before afinal decision could be taken. Moreover, the national body wouldbe controlled by provincial chieftains whose understandable in-clination would be to attach' primary importance to theprovin-,cial, 'a s against the national, organization. This tendencywould merely serve to reinforce an inherent feature - and basicprinciple - of federa ted organizations: supremacy of the consti-tuentuni ts in this case, provincial unions. By comparison,the structure proposed above is highly flexible, permittingdecisive act i on on either a provincial or a national basis,whichever is appropriate to the situation at hand.Unquestionably the most damning feature of federat ions isthei r charac ter is t ic remoteness from individual members. Asa federation of local unions, CUS has been plagued by thisproblem. As a federation of federations (provincial unions) ,i ts position would be hopeless. Decision-making and th eelection of officials would be at least twace removed fromth e general membership, a situation hardly designed to pro-mote individual identification with the national union.


21/35

- 20 -

The "federation" approach stands condemned on both democraticand strategic grounds.)2) That CUS membership fees be based upona formuLa which prescribes a Lower percapita Levy for smaLL unions than forthose-of larger size.

(This recommendation should no t be interpreted as a resurrect-ion of the once common proposal for establishing an "associate"form of CUS membership, whereby certain unions would, i f theyso desired, be exempt from th e "political" aspects of CUSactivity and sub ject to reduced fees and general benefits. Onthe contrary, full participation would be eApected of eachmember. Each would receive ident ical benef its and assumeidentical responsibilit ies, the differential levy merely re-flecting recogni tion of the f inancial l imi ta tions which inva-riably accompany smallness and of the significant economieswhich conversely accompany size. .Considerable variation is possible insofar as the precisenature of the formula is concerned. I t might, for example,prescribe two standard levies, one app li cable to unionshaving fewer than, say, 500 members, and another for' un ionswith a membership of 500 or more. Alternatively, severalgradations might be established to correspond with certainspecified ranges in membership.)

3) That a majority vote of the locaLunion's generaL membership be madea constitutionaL requirement foraffiLiation with CUS, and, simiLarLy, that a disaffiliation votebe required for withdrawal.

(These requirements are intended to further the goal of makingCUS less a federation of students" councils than a union ofstudents. I t should be obvious, however , that in the absenceof other measures directed toward the same end, they areutterly without value in that regard. They assume signifi-cance only in the con text of a general and concerted effort atall . levels - local , provinc ia l and national - to achieve massparticipation and involvement.)


22/35

- 21 -

Decision-Making at the National Level

During th e past year, the Board of Off icer s has made provlslon for b asicchanges in th e structure and organizat ion of th e Congress, primarily witha view to increasing i ts decision-making effectiveness. Time and resourcelimitations have prevented th e immediate implementation of s everal keyelements in the Board's program of Congress reform -- notably those relatingto Congress preparation and to th e general field of membership education.As a resul t , the program's full impact will not be felt ' unt i l the 1969Congress.In view of th e cri t ical attention which the Congress has recently received,I will focus in this section upon decision-making as i t occurs during interCongress period, touching only peripherally upon the Congress i t se l f . 6Over the yea rs, CUS decision-making in the period between Congress es hasshown a consistent tendency to be 'chaotic, crisis-oriented and, at the bestof times, only semi-democratic in character.Despite constitutional authority second only to that of the Congress, theBoard-of Officers has, in actual practice, been more an appendage than anintegral component of th e CUS decision-making apparatus. Lacking detailedand comprehensive knowledge of developments within the national office andon member campuses, i t has generally been unable to form independent judgements, being substantially reduced to accepting or rej ect ing proposi tions putto i t by th e president o r vice-president. The Board is thus u t t e r ~ y d e p e n d e n tupon th e executive and, as a consequence, subj ect to a considerable degree ofmanipulation . Within cer ta in l imi ts , the executive is free to det.errni.ne whichquestions will receive consideration by the Board and which, on the other hand,will be dealt with by the executive or Secretariat. In al l ' l ikel ihood, adecision to by-pass the Board on a question of some importance could be takenonly with the unanimous consent of the program staff (executive and associatesecretaries), since otherwise th e Board would almost certainly be alerted bythe dissenter(s). 'Quite obviously, however, this does not, in i t se l f , represent an adequate safeguard against manipulation.During the past year, this picture has changed appreciably as a resul t ofefforts designed to overcome th e Board I s chronic lack of information -- Chiefsource of i t s long-standing impotence. - The Board and Secretariat have attemptedover th e year to establish procedures for the systematic planning, reporting,evaluation and review of nat iona l office activity -- to bring order out chaosand, in doing so, to create a situation i n'which the Board is capable ofeffective, decision-making. The attempt has been only partial ly successful.

6 The following documents contain basic material relevant to Congress reform:XXXIJ7pngress: A n ~ s s e s s m e n t , November'l967, Project Plant: ConS!ess 1968,November 196?, Project Report: Congress 1968, May, 1968.

_ u __.... _ " ~ ~ ~ __


23/35

- 22 -

The Board has become a reasonably effective cr i t ic of the Secretar iat , buthas failed almost entirely to 'perform a creative role with respect to overalldirection of the national office and the development of CUS policy and programs. Several immediate' factors can be identified as having contributed tothis failing; al l reflect , directly or indirectly, an overcommitment of Secretariat resources:1)

2)

Planning and reporting were carried out on a piecemeal,program-by-program basis. No attempt was made to preparean integrated plan based upon the ind iv idua l p ro je ct out lines or to provide the Board with a coherent overviewof Secretariat activity.Much of the material presented to the Board showed theeffects of hasty preparation, tending to be analytically superficial and intellectually sloppy.

3) Material was not distributed sufficiently in advance ofBoard meetings to permit careful scrut iny , much lesst h G ~ o u g h consideration.

The experience of the past year has, for a l l i ts shortcomings and frustrat ions, demonstrated that the Board need not be forever ,ineffective, that withnot-unreasonable .effort - - including an attempt by the Congress to relate program proposals to Secretariat resources - - the Board can become an effectivedecision-making force; The year's experience has also shown that annualpolicy-making with only caretaking in the inter im , is no longer appropriate-" assuming .it once was -- to the Union's situation, Policy and program development cannot continue' to be held in v ir tu al abeyance between Congresses.Decisive redirection of effort must be possible in response to concrete experience or changing conditions.As long as the Board seemed condemned to perpe tual impotence, and minoradministrative decisions' seemed' to be a ll that was required between Congresses,the Board's composition was' of l i t t le consequence'," However, as ' both theBoard's effectiveness and the importance of inter-Congress' decision-makingincrease, the ques tion t akes ' on anew significance. A narrowly-constitutedbody can no longer be tolerated; the Board (or i tsequivalent) must be broadlybased, responsive to , and in cLos e contact with, the Union's membership, Thepresent Board, composed' of, eight' provincial representatives , the ' finance andprogram commissioners, president, v.Lce-presi.dent., president"elect and pastpresident, meets noneion these' criteria," Clearly, a body of much broadercomposition is essential. Such a body might even provide CUS with a meaningful existence outside the Secretariat during the per iod between C o n ~ L e s s e s .Within the nat iona l office, all formal decision-making authority is in thehands of the president and vice-president. In actual practice, most. decisions of consequence are made' on a Collective basis by the entire programstaff (president, vice-president and' associate secretaries). However, thisarrangement is an. unstable 'one; subj ec.t to' instant dissolution by the exe-


24/35

- 23 -

cutive. Where decision-making is concerned, the p re sident and vice-presidentcan by-pass the associate secretaries more or less at will - - a lthough notwithout producing serious antagonisms i f th e practice becomes routine.As presidential appointees, associate secretaries have no independent mandateon which to base a demand for collective decision-making. Consequently,they cannot become a significant check on arbitrary or i l l-considered execut ive act ion as long as they continue to be appointed by the president. Inview of this situation, and of the considerable'number of decisions - - nota ll of them minor -- which must of necessity be made a t the Secretar iatlevel, a transfer of responsibility for program s taff appointments from thepresident to the Board or Congress would seeTI to be desirable.Pres identia l se lec tion of associate secretaries can be further crit icizedas prcvi.di.ng a means through which individuals who do not conman.' theunion's confidence may be introduced into i ts organizational "hierarchy".The present oligarchic method of program s taff selection undoubtedly contributes to the suspicion in which Secretariat members are often hele! by localunions. Understandably -- but not, I think just if iably - - the la t ter areinclined to regard associate secretaries as presidential factoturls ratherthan agents of th e Union and thus i t s members. The prevalence of this viewcannot help but impair the Secretar iat 's effectiveness, ' 'Recommendations:

1) That associate secretaries and fieldworkers be appointedby the National Council (see below), and that proceduresbe established which provide for the dismissal of anyassociate secretary or'fieldworker by a majority voteof the National Councilor "qenei-al:" membership (in aplenary session of the Congress or by mail vote),(Election of associate secretaries and field-workersby the Congress would unquestionably be preferableto appointment by the National Council. However,barring a major shif t in Congress t i m i n g ~ the former

r T h question of Congress,timing is.discussed as follows in A Shape forT h ~ n g s to Come, a report on CUS membership struoture and finanoing preparedby t h 1966-6? Board of Direotors:

'IWhen should the Congress be held? Much time has been spent .intrying to work out a better time of year than S e p t e m b e ~ . Studentgovernments are generally elected in February/Maroh,and takeoffice soon after. The aotivepart of the sohool year is overand the September Congress is too Often the f irst offioialaotivity of the inoomingPresident and delegates. CUS' :riesolutions are passed too Often without having been worked outin looal oouncil'debates and eduoational programs.Leoni: 'd . )


25/35

- 24 -

does not seem possible, since i t is likely that many p r o s ~pective candidates would be in no position to guaranteethe i r ava ilabi li ty in ten month' s t ime when they wouldbe expec ted to take off ice.2) That, before taking office, the vice-president servea one-year term as vice-preeidenti-eleot;

' (This would introduce simultaneous election 'of the pre-:sident and vice-president with both s erv ing as officerselect for one year. Under existing arrangements, thevice-president assumes office 'immediately upon election.This means that vice-presidential candidates can make'no advance plans for the year and t ha t c er ta in al ter- 'natives may be irrevocably lost to them as a result ofthe need to remain uncommitted.

"Two other possible times of year are the Christmas holidaysand May. (The amount of work whiah surrounds Congress preparations makes i t unwise to consider planning a Congress du:t'ingeither fall or winter term.)"Delegates to a Christmas Congress would have the benefit o fthree months of aampus program experienae behind them.The serious drawbaak to a Deaember Congress is that aounaiZmembers eleated in January/February would no t partiaipate ina Congress until near the end o f their term, and would bedealing with a CUS program they did not partiaipate inareating . ., May Congress would bring together all the new aounailsand provide them with a national experienae to get theirthoughts going, and then give them the whole summer towork on plans for the aampus in the fall. Yet one of thearitiaisms of the September Congress is that i t does no tafford delegations adequate time to prepare locally, anda May Congress would obviously be worse in this regard"Congress dates are primarily dependent upon the dates of 'aampus eleations. Thus, if these eleations were inGatober/November, a Christmas Congress would be exaellent.The Board is o f the opinion that February/Marah remainsthe best time for' loaal eleations, with new offiaerstaking over in Marah or during the late spring. This,in tiurn, restriats the Congress to late summer or earlyfaZZ .... "


26/35

/- 2S -

The president-elect and most incoming associate secretaries join the Secretariat dur ing June or July andspend the pre-Congress period assessing the past year,considering possible approaches to their wcrl ; , makingprepara tions for the C ongr es s and familiarizing themselves with the workings of the national office, Thecharacter of the new Secretariat is . in large measuredetermined by the d iscuss ions which tak e pla ce duringthis period, I t would therefore seem desirable toensure vice-presidential participation,)

3) That the Board of Officers be replaced by a NationalCouncil. constituted along the following lines:- president and vice-president- president-elect and vice-president-elect- presidents of provincial unions (currently 7)- 10-12 campus representatives elected at Larqeby the Congress- associate secretaries and fieldworkers

(In order to avoid undue size on the one hand anddomination by full-time employees on the other,associate secretaries and fieldworkers should bemade non-voting members of the Council, I t mayalso be adv isab le to deny voting status to the president, vice-president, president-elect and vicepresident-elect, rather than encourage invidiousdistinctions between executive members and associate secretaries and fieldworkers.Chief among the Council's responsibil i t ies wouldbe the following:

(a) to develop and refine CUS policiesand programs within the basic framework of Congress legislation;(b) to supervise and direct (or redirect)the activity of th e nationa l office;(c) to conduct a continuous r evi.ew of CUSpolicies, p ro gra ms a nd priori t ies i nlight of changing conditions and concrete experiences a t the local, provincial and national levels;(d) to init iate and develop appropriateprograms of national action - that is ,programs involving coordinated local,provincial and national effort .)


27/35

.. 26 '.

Fieldwork

An analysis of any program must quite obviously be carried out in reference toan explicit set of goals and expectations. I t therefore seems appropriate 'co,begin this assessment with a discussion of the f'unc t i ons and intermediate obj ec ti ve s o f fieldwork, i t being understood chat the program"s ultimate goal isthe implementation and development of the Union" s policies.Of the five functions which I will attempt t o d el in eat e and define, three mightbe termed "Iess er" or secondary functions. Thes e are th e "p eacekeeping", member,ship recruitment and, for lack of a better term, "feedback" functions of f ieldwork. In labelling them "lesser" I do not mean to br-and them unnecessary Ori l legitimate. Rather, I simply wish to indicate that I do not regard them asprimary functions; they do not constitute a raison cl ' ,etre for f ie ldwork .Peacekeeping. CUS fieldworkers frequently find themselves cast in the role ofambassador or professional apologist whose primary functions ar e mending pol i t ical fences and responding to the per enrri a.l "What do I get for my 'x ' cents 7" .Unfortunately, this steri le form of f i el dwor-k the progr ammatf,c equivalent oftreading water, has been, and con tinues t o be, all too necessary. Except inthose cases where criticism of CUS is ideologically-based, dissatisfaction .reflects CUS failings in regard to communication, policy development or programactivity. Major efforts must be made to e limian te these causes of criticismand discontent, thereby reducing,the need for a mopping-up operation in theform of peacekeeping fieldwork.Membership Recruitment. Fieldwork must be regarded as but one element inan overall program of recruitment. Conversely, ,we must recognize that membership recruitment is only one obj ective - and a rather minor one a t that - of 'the total fieldwork program.Feedback. By virtue of knowledge gained through fieldwork, the activity ofthe national office can, at least in theory, be redirected in response tochanging conditions, on member campuses. However, th e existing lack of systematic review procedures and the chronic over commi, tment of Secretariat r es our'cesmilitate agains t t hi s kind of flexible response during the inter-Congressperiod. The feedback function (more accurately, by"product) of fieldworkassumes importance under conditions of flexible and real ist ic resourcecommitment and only then i f sound evaluative procedures exist .Having brief ly discussed the lesser obj ectives of fieldwork, I wi l ). now moveto a considerat ion of those functions which constitute th e essential just i f i ..cation, the raison d'etre of fieldwork - nariel y the provi sion o f a studentgovernment "consulting service" and the promotion of canpus act ivi ty relatingt


28/35

- 27 .,

Consul ting .. The questions towards which the f i e l d \ ~ o r k e r - a s ' - c o n s u lt an t d ire ctshis attention are determined to a considerable extent by the current concerns,problems and programs of the s tudent s council with which he is working" Hisrole is that of advising the council with respect to their priori t ies on thebasis of whatever knowledge and experience he may possess. Over and abovethis, however, he should attempt to analyse, in a manner which is bo th penetrating and comprehensive, the current state of student government and studentgovernment programming and offer detai led recommendations based upon thatanalysis. Under normal circumstances a f ie ldworker should not be expectedto assume direct responsibil ity for a students" council project or program(e.g. the p rep ara tio n o f a brief or organization of a Seminar)' .There will, of course, be occasions when "consulting" activity provesessentially steri le in terms of CUS policies and programs, as, in th e case ofa students' council which is inflexible and self-satisfied and whose prior i t iesdiffer radically from those of CUS. Despite this ' inevitability, I wouldnevertheless establish "conSUlting" as an absolute requirement of fieldwork.Any student government, no matter how' irrelevant or inept, at least deservesthoughtful criticism and advice.Program Development. As I havealready suggested, f ie ldwork directed towardthe promotion of local act iv i ty ln accord with CUS prior i t ies and generalpolicy may, on some campuses, t.ake place largely l ~ i t : h i n rh e cont:ext of studentgovernment, while on others, student government may be essentially irrelevantto the p'rccess, . In any event ,f ie ldwork of the "program development" typeinvolves meeting with students - individuals, informal groups and organizations - in order to share analysis, discuss al ternat:i.ves to the status quo,and consider questions of organization, strategy and tact ics. The fielcr:worker's role is ' that of ' ' 'social animator"; his major objective is the formation of cadres. These cadres may operate within, in support of, or in oppo-'sition to student government.Experience over the past two years has rev'ealed serious deficiencies in ourstandard approach to fieldwork. The "consulting" and "program development"functions of f ieldwork cannot be adequately performed in ' the two to five daystraditionally allocated to each campus. An analysis of stl1dent governmentand student government programming, i f i t i s to be anything but superficialand hence of dubious value, requires a degree of familiarity with the campussituation which cannot be obtained in the course of a brief stopover. Thesituation is similar as rr egards program devel.cpmerrt e a considerable period oftime is needed to ferret ou t and animate potent:ially active students and student groups. Under th e p re sent arrangement tota,l fai lure, or only part ialsuccess, is likely, i f not assured.If the gains made in the course of fieldwork are to be consolidated, thefieldworker must maintain uninterrupted contact with the campus follOWinghis vis i t . The geographical remoteness of the national office from mostmember schools and t he pressure on associate secretaries of non-fieldworkresponsibilities militate against th e maintenance of such contact


29/35

- 28 -

Competing demands upon associate secretaries ' time tend also to lim it the amountof fieldwork preparation which is undertaken, although th e value of reading reports, scanning back issues of campus newspapers and thumbing through cor-cespondence files is obvious.By the same token, student governments too are often inadequately preparedfo r fieldwork - partly because they have only a vague conception of f i.eLdwor-kobjectives and potential, and partly because f ie ldwork schedules are frequentlyestablished without reference to the needs, wishes or program of the membersconcerned. On both counts, responsibility for t hi s s it ua ti on rests with thenational office.Geographic and financial considerations seriously l imit the abi l i ty of CUSto deploy fieldworkers in response to crisis situations on member campuses,particularly in the cas.e of Western and Maritime schools.Current fieldwork policy dictates that under normal circumstances no f ieldworker will visi t the same campus more than once. This policy was establishedin order to maximize student government exposure to differing perspectives,insights and'ideas. Its adoption appears, in retrospect, to have been aserious error. Contacts, rapport and a basic understanding of an insti tution'sidiosyncrasies are developed only after a considerable expenditure of time andeffort. Moreover, they are not transferable from One fieldworker to another comprehensive reporting ,and extensive consultation notWithstanding. In establ ishinga non-repeating system of fieldworl" , insufficient weight was attachedto these considerations. The 'value of pluralism in fieldwork is not so great'as to compensate for the ineffic iency of the present system,The above obstacles ,to effective fieldwork can be surmounted only with theintroduction of a system of full-time, regionally-based f'Lel dwo'rk ers , Such asystem would enable the fieldworker to spend extended periods of time (2-3weeks) on individual campuses, to remain in constant: touch with developmentsin his area, and to respond rapidly in the case of a crisis situation on anyone campus. His geographica'l proximi ty would facil i tate corrt inutng communi ca tion with th e campus subsequent to a period 'o f ,fieldwork ,arid would permit f o l l o w ~up'fieldwork whenever necessarY:The fieldworkercould be 'expected to work closely with th e provincial union (5)in his region, assisting in the development'of 'regional or provincial programsand strategies (as ' ,for example," in the case of a province-wide fee increase).A "training" program and periodic conferences which brought fieldworkers(and Secretariat program staff) tOi;ether for purposes of exchanging inform'ation and discussing mutual concerns would be e ss en tia l in the context of ascheme of this type.


30/35

- 29 -

\

Recommendation:That a fun-time GUS f i e ~ d w o r k e r b e p e r m a n e n t l y 'loaatiedin eaah of the f o ~ ~ o w i n g regions: '

'1) British G o ~ u m b i a (4 ~ d a ~ unions. 26.000members)2) the Prair ies (7 ~ o a a ~ unions. 55.500members) ,5) Ontario (18 ~ o a a ~ unions, 75,250 members)

'4) the Maritimes (22 Local: unions, ~ 5 000members)(Taken by themselves, the Ontario membership figures suggestthat at least two CUS fieldworkers should be based in theOntario region. 'However, in view of'the strong position ofOUS relative to the remaining provincial unions; no more thanone Ontario fieldworker can be justified at t he present time(see discussion under "Provincial and Nati.onaI Unions). As atemporary expedient, pending unif icat ion of CUS and th e pro-vincial unions, OUS fieldworkers should be encouraged toattend all gatherings of CUS fieldworkers. In addi.ti.on, theCUS national office should a tt empt to maintain constan tcommunication with the OUS fieldwork s taff .Fieldwork conferences 'could' be held during the two or three'days following each National Council meeting. A fieldworkseminar" involving national office personnel as well asoutgoing and incoming 'fieldworkers, should be held dur ing'June or early July .) ,

, " ~ I


31/35

- 30 -

The National Office

As I have suggested twice previously in this paper, the CUS national officesuffers from chronic and debilitating overextension. Its meager resourcesare spread thinly over a broad range of activi t ies; i t does a great many things,but does none of them well. Short-run or recurring commitments, and generalbureaucratic responsibilities inevitably take precedence over, and interferewith, long- term development work - that is , the important gives way to theurgent.The present diffusion and overcommitment of Secretariat resources is directlytraceable t o fa ilu re on the part of the Congress to consider the implicitdemands of various policies and programs upon the nat iona l office. Certainlyno attempt has ever been made to systematically relate program proposals toSecretariat resources. The consequences of this failing would no t be part icularly serious were i t . possible, within the national office, to alloc ateresources on the basis of priorit ies established by the Congress.Such, however, is no t the case.Certain programs - often of low priority - require a considerable expenditure of effort merely in order to become operational. These prograns mightbe said to have a characteristic "work threshold"8 - which may be high or1 0 1 ~ . ISEP is an excellent example of a program with a high work thresholc\.Certain other programs are, i n con tr as t, highly elastic. These programs haveno definable work threshold. For example, whether two or 200 hours are expended on research activity, a research program can be considered to exist.It may be unimpressive, bu t i t is nonetheless a research program. The upshotof al l this is that, in a situation of overcommitment, elast ic programs receive short shrif t regardless of priority, while certain inelast ic (workthreshold) programs receive a degree of attention - and account for an expenditure of effort which is totally inappropriate to their priority asdefined by the Congress. Although I have been discussing elasticity andwork threshold only in relation to human resou rces , the distinction can beapplied with equal validity in the case of financial resources.Clearly, the Congress must begin to assess CUS programs in l ight of the phenomenon described above. Low priori ty programs which unavoidably entaillarge resource expenditures - for example, ISEP and the Federat ion internationale du sport universitaire (FISU)' - must be eliminated. The aff i liations which CUS has developed with numerous national arid international

8 The "work threshold" for any given program is the amount of work withoutwhich the pro?ram ~ o u l d collapse.


32/35

- 31 -

organizations should be individually reviewed. If an organization's relevanceto the Union's chief concerns proves insufficient to, justify the costs (bothhuman and financial) of cont inued membership, cns participation shoulrl beterninated. The introduction of new programs Sh0111,\ he cons i der ed in thesame Li ght .The Congress must make concerted efforts to ensure that demands iroposed lIpanthe national office do not outstrip available resources. This requires onthe one hand, a more explicit definition of the Secre ta r ia t 's ro le in anygiven program than has been traditional, and , on' tho other, i t re2.1iz,[tion ofthe considerable t ime, money and effort expender! by the {national office incarrying out various routine; somewhat; mundane, but nonetheless essential,operations - , for example, Congress and Seminar preparations, routine correspondence (collectively, members of the national office s taff write severalthousand let ters annually) and fundraising. Faced with a situation inwhich the requirements of i ts policies and programs are beyond th e capacities of the Secretariat, the Congress must either cu t back or make provisionfor a larger staff . I t cannot have i ts cake an-t eat i t t oo,The problem of Secretariat ineffectiveness - largely attributable to overcommitment and d if fusion of resources - has been aggravated by a clumsy andinappropriate division of labour within th e Secretariat i t se l f . At th e program s taff level, functional specialization has been held to an absoluteminimum. Associate secretaries have each been expected to do some fieldwork, some research, some administrative work, and so on. They tend as aresult to be jacks-of-all-trades, masters of none.Certa in functions - fieldwork and research among them - demand more or lessuninterrupted effort and a re the re fo re profoundly unsuited . to comb i.nati.onwith other activit ies. In the preceding section of this paper, I suggestedthat the mixing of fieldwork and national office responsibi li t ies was c1.etrimental to both and should therefore be avoided. While the combination ofresearch activity with other functions is not so obviously inadvisable, i tis nonetheless clear that t he resea rch efforts of CUS must be given a continuing focus in the form of at least one associate secreta:ry ..Nhose attentionwould be devoted' exclusively to research, in the hroades t s ens e of that tern.The present posit ion of associate secretary for SGRS fal ls far short of thisdescript ion s ince SGRS is f i rs t and foremost an information service, andonly secondarily .a research operat ion.Until the program staff loses i t s aversion to functional specialization thenational office wil l fai l to achieve maximum effectiveness. HONever, i tshould be understood that in advocating increasing specialization, I am notby any means suggesting the who l esa l e di sp ers i on of d

Canadian Union of Students and Student Unionism - Brian Hutchison - Aug 28-Sept 4, 1968

Documents

Transcript of Canadian Union of Students and Student Unionism - Brian Hutchison - Aug 28-Sept 4, 1968