Carleton University - Raven Yearbook (Ottawa, Ontario Canada)

Page 12 text:

Hunter added, And students still regard themselves as distinct from faculty in administrative posts. l would hope when they do get in such a position they would do more than just represent themselves. Hunters were clashed. Miter a spectacularly dismat lelefrstfwrai chewing, the N.U.G. reps pulled a Generat h'h:fes'thf1tfr. President-elect Bruce Brittain recugnE.:ed rarzh ef communication between l1l,1..t-1.15. students in his campaign. He prfrmn wnnprcrue channels of communication f-f ,uxii reps and Council over the summer 1fiw.rtlcHug3t meetings and concerted work on beth Ezfittaids rash constitutes a definite challenge. He first must revive N.U.G. by making it clear that the reps are in fact student representatives and not merely individuals when seated on academic boards and committees. He must successfully foster an information flow between Council, reps and students so that positive, concerted action can be taken on issues in the students' interests. He must insist on the passage of the N.U.G. amendments by Senate and can do it with the strong mandate established by the referendum. When students leave this place they take something with them, whether simply a piece of paper, or hopefully a little more. Through N.U.G., while making themselves obsolete, they have perhaps left something of worth behind. T. Farrell Fi' f V T - T 1' - 16 ' - li --LV L Well you're here - but what can you do? 8

Page 11 text:

As a carleton graduate, circa 1969, you are probably extinct. The implementation of the white paper on New University Government this academic year may give future generations of Carleton graduates more than just the eternal piece of paper. They may have an education. At the student level the passage of the N.U.G. document was a bitter struggle which centred around the rate of University reform. Activitist Hans Brown, backed by some members of Council, charged President Lampert with attempting to railroad the paper through Council without adequate provision for discussion. Lampert counter-attacked by reminding Councillors of his electoral mandate and his duty to implement N.U.G. He backed up his stance with a threat to resign. And so it went. The clash of personalities and ideologies that tended to split the Council throughout the year again was allowed to intervene and marred the possibility of any effective Council action on the implementation of N.U.G. Council members at large were given only fifteen minutes to read the document as preparation for debate. Only a handful present knew that Davidson Dunton had arranged a press conference to announce N.U.G. passage the next afternoon. While N.U.G. was inevitably accepted, the more radical reformers managed to initiate a referendum on some contentious amendments proposed for the N.U.G. plan. ln overwhelming numbers, students turned out to vote after an encouraging amount of reasoned debate, discussion and published information. The student body agreed to accept N.U.G. as it stood providing that amendments be subsequently negotiated. They wanted student participation at the departmental level, at least at a 1 to 3 ratio with faculty, opennes of deliberation of all university bodies, and a guaranteed number of students on the Senate and Board of Governors. They rejected student involvement in appointments and other personnel matters of staff and faculty members by a mere seven votes. They rejected student involvement in academic review of student files by a margin of about 400 votes. This margin tended to correspond with the split of students who wanted to accept and negotiate and those who wanted to write in the amendments before N.U.G. passage. On the positive side, departments announced plans which, for the most part, included the election of students in numbers which exceeded those outlined in N.U.G. Four students were elected to the Senate and one sits on the Board of Governors. ln the realm of reform, the Senate approved an Arts faculty board proposal concerning the abolition of first year requirements pending individual departmental decisions. And then it died. Students seemingly digested N.U.G. but had little to show for their efforts... except for the occasional ulcer. Perhaps vice-president George Hunter hit the critical point when he expressed disappointment with the rejection of some of the amendments. He observed, lf students aren't going to be involved in the appointment of faculty, how are they going to change the decision-making process? -9 7

Page 13 text:

4 -Ji Ali? -'MQ kf:ll.fS ,L MH V' M z 3 if W , f ',I'Qy7fX' ,QL 'T ,