Carleton University - Raven Yearbook (Ottawa, Ontario Canada)

Page 19 text:

in T. at 3 it 9 f, iff' xg! Carleton students not only learned to do the N.U.G., but also did in C.U.S. N.U.G. drove a wedge between the ideological factions on council, and C.U.S. smashed them apart. The great debate was initiated in Council concerning CarIeton's role, if any, in C.U.S. The real action started when Hans Brown and aids revived the S.D.U. iStudents for a Democratic University! in an attempt to educate the student body into remaining in the C.U.S. fold. Accusations were hurled wildly during the heated debates at some stages. Council President Jerry Lampert was accused by eight members of Council of conducting clandestine attempts to organize a new national union. Lampert vehemently denied the charges and received a vote of confidence from the remainder of the Council. In the interim, two Council executive members were privately censured for their role in the affair. The clash of Council personalities tended to obscure the main issues. ln the interest of effective debate Steve Langdon, U. of T. Council President, and C.U.S. President Peter Warrian appeared at Carleton to fight for the right to C.U.S. However they found little opposition. A subsequent editorial in the Carleton deplored the lack of action on the part of the anti-C.U.S. side in the interests of an informed student electorate. ln a further attempt to generate interest in a flagging debate which The Carleton 9 ur-

Page 18 text:

..,,. 1 ,. ' 4 4-'.,-- - . - - - 1 I' 53- ' . i w, . -xl ,- . xdfiig 4, f .1f.. f I- .,,.' ,J ' 5 -,. J-,'.,, . ' ' , ft 1 U-wa. .y -. Lp: ' ' 1, .-1? K:':1 N'3'r,f '. -.471-'cf' 'X '-f'.?A? f'-.38 5' :If 'ff T-if f r.,'--- -1-nr - .QA aria... gl! .ff 5, lag.:-l,,.x ,ff .gig .' ,'t1,'q-m'f'a fn .: -f. -..- --.L .2 ,- 51. za .9 -123 'f' -'fic V ' 1. -':.f.f.'f-Q-. . ,J .f,,,., . . .A4 .. 5 . MQ. I- 'Av-z t?g .1 223 . PSS- -J J.. . Ja- '. '- ' l'r ii? .A z ,.. 5.1! l.,g, w,'. ' l,'. nf U55 -17. 4 1, 1 1 1 I hi .1 F :lf S .-E . fx fa? ? 3 A 1 up ei ag. nj ' 95 - ,-3' ,tg . -.. xx .,. . gv. ri FHL s :j 1. .1 v ' . :K -53 . 'x

Page 20 text:

:inferred was of crucial importance, equal space was available for both sides to present arguments. rgfied that C.U.S. in fact taxed without aiafzion since no delegates were directly to specifically represent students at J it was argued that C.U.S. was relatively ...Q as a national lobby and students disagreed i Zeift-wing stance of the union concerning cv-if outside community. Pro-C.U.S.ers :..fa1'l that an increasing awareness and involvement :crm ..-i frational problems was essential. They stressed M C.U.S, was relatively democratic in that member wa,nfuw3E'Q1Ees could withdraw at will and concerted af:'tw'fr on the part of students could make C.U.S. an effective lobby. in general, the C.U.S. referendum seemed to suffer from overexposure and lack adequate definition. Fewer students participated in the C.U.S. referendum than in the earlier one on N.U.G. Carleton opted out of C.U.S. by a vote of 1,298 yea to 1,043 nay. The C.U.S. issue would appear to be far from buried. First, the vote was rather close - perhaps close enough for another round. Lorenz Schmidt, the new internal vice-president believes that major political issues should be submitted to the students by means of a referendum. External Vice-President Rod lVlanchee ran on a platform which included the necessity of a national union of some sort. Bruce Brittain also expressed deep concern in this area during his electoral compaign. lt is hardly likely that a relatively activist Council will allow the slim referendum to deter efforts to get Carleton back into a national union of some sort. In other words it is possible that present anti-C.U.S.ers may yet learn to C.U.S .... and like it. T. Farrell Q , Q