Carleton University - Raven Yearbook (Ottawa, Ontario Canada)

Page 26 text:

4 6 w , jzxssg-4,1- I -. , Q! f ff ' 4 l U ' Ax. A 34 5 :V :5... I , ixw x U ' 4.3 - A , 4 1. 5 , f m ' M 12 4 ' 4 - . 1 1. -Q A Wg. , 1.1. , , af - --F - ., .- I 1.1.-.Ng-,:s' ,. ' T.-.ii.fj,: A ' .::.'z,.'1' aa., P 'XQ- wa. . X 5 , 1 .- ? , -' '. .1 S, Q , N f I , I ,. ' ls! A ,- .f - ' . gf- 1 . , ' ' 1 Q ti f' 'Y 1 'yfsx F. ,. .Aff ,QF-n ff , 4, ' ' Q' . 5 , . ' r ' -'F . -. 7 - ' , ---Q 451 'J , 415255352 Q .g A . fm ' ' 21 ' 2 'iffy -nFf.?'3eg-1155 5' ffafffi ff-1 'R 1.1 mfg' ig in f.,i.4l,v2:51g?,','-gd 1 Q-A if- 'Q-1 ':i:,1f1:-2 - ' ' I-fi'5f':3,fl4ff',iZ-Iii. f-5'ff1: 'b 1 :Y ' .-,,as,. ., 1 ,. . gf- ',-.iz-ails-'i:. r 59,1 'PP' X X ., ,'...Q21-'fsggZm,gY' '--1533123.44 213' - . Ja -:Al -fl, 3 F- .- : Fai zip ..-ug J' 'M V .'-SFRA ,. W:-fsfaiiffzfx 'rin nm, 5:vi.1'- 1' , iff x 1:0 le .a -w 5-Ima, .- , ' -, , - V -5 -1. Rm, 1' -' 'Sui' '- Y vxiffzb 1.1. 'Q , 1 '-x H x 71? .15-:gif ' 'f ei! Hs' Zil?L'f3 15 7' 'Af' 'Fi ' wiki' 'X ,H W ' -51'55g7'.'-iq' I , X by -'S 4311-' ., , , ' ' 14' fi' rg: 3:.- fi gina-:p,g.,,rf,aE.:141:'2N- Bw- if ' pf ,fg,,..f 31 -w.p.:'w.. A .ug ' ,- n - Advfv-, -xx' W -1' ,. W 5312895 94'.JJ'i'T'V: sf fv, Y A,,,!1f'x,,5j:l1,4,iggf'3 54,1 .Hg , , ' '-ezfwlfi-f1f 4 L G ' 55J '4J1R'45: -li'-1: R: V Y- .qb'x?t7F-.,- ' igwj-, :ew -Rig-.11 1 ,.:, g - PQ 1 . X f-if . - ,, i-A f,. .r-gx,.3:,TsZv ,wifi , 4 4 I ,f 'm if 'QA WV:-:MTV-' W4 557 I . , .-'qi-gf ,E gf.1,yJ ':.,5f'f,u5':.vs,,g' vx X ' . NN - k ' - ',-,14-.-.- 1 ' v.-' .' - . IT. .f.- 1.1 I -.ggrijlit 5 ' , .fif 1.45.- , .. ' BL - A . 4, C111 V. Q- -5. 'V f ' ' ' ' ' '.x4'i'gGS5E,-3 ' V . , , 4, 1 , g..,5EQt?Mg?85j3wg.,.-V x - , ' - . .-1,-,fi1::-Q.fs4,-19 ,, -f.,-,. f. , ..',. 3 Wfna 4 Q.

Page 25 text:

1 'fi- .' -x' fm V e K ff, ? is l 1 C 5 . E . s EET 'T T ix , H ,bl '-' Q g I S 'P- ' Q Y L ' i X Q ,. gf' 1 I x 'F hw' Q A fn' .5 if Qs, w

Page 27 text:

T ,r ,- I' .vie ,- 4, For The fight for student power at Carleton 1969-'70 was a stand-off. ,. - Over the summer 'months a students' council committee to examine the university government structure lN.U.G.l ' came up with a' number of progressive new measures. Among them, parity, and the eventual self-destruction of students' council which the report said, has come to constitute a kind of competition for N.U.G., and is perhaps sapping N.U.G.'s potential strength and personnel resources. Much of the continuing debate about the power structure at Carleton centred around the possibility of parity. lan Angus opened discussion on this crucial feature about N.U.G. and its future. He said, concerning the approaches of the council report, So parity not only gives 'us'fifty per cent of the power, it magically abolishes alienation, student apathy, and all those things. lsn't that nice. Except for one thing: why should students spontaneously do those things after wesget parity when they've spontaneously not been doing them for decades? They didn't. . In the meantime, the council committee classified the operation of N.U.G. as an example of faculty power. .Others stated that the student representation operated on the, trickle up principle. The report also noted that alI members of the Senate or Board in function as members of these bodies were charged not to act as delegates of the bodies or constituencies from which they were drawn. This was not new information. But in the eyes of many student activists, only tended to confirm their suspicion about the reality of student representation, particularly when some student senators publicly announced that they only represented themselves. ' ' During the October by-elections one presidential hopeful said that N.U.G. can look after education and council can look after the association. Lorenz Schmidt wanted a collective approach to action stressing student involvement. We are unwilling .to turn back the clock to service organization and hope that educational problems will solve themseIves, he said. , . , Thelactivists' were disappointed in the N.U.G. elections themselves as only forty per cent of the positions were contested. Voting turnout was extremely low .... for example, only five and one half per cent of second year English bothered to vote. Carleton' columnist Judi Stevenson' commented, They lthe studentsl don't perceive the importance of N.U.G. for their own existance at Carleton. She expressed the fear that the apathy demonstrated in the elections would mean the end of the parity struggle. The.Senate will use any justifiable method to oppose parity. This appears to be a justifiable reason. ' While the N.U.G. structure was atrophying, students' council concerned itself with possible faculty representation in council. Schmidt denounced this N.U.G. clause as a tit for tat arrangement and suggested thay any faculty pressure should be directed through their own organizations. During the second term the parity issue appeared to gain momentum. In a referendum in February, students supported the demands for parity in the governing structures of the university by a ,better than two to one majority. But the student leaders could not, or would not act on the mandate. The referendum results actually constituted a student opinion poll as the referendum wasnot binding upon the administration, senate or on a divided council that was trying to reconstitute itself after mass executive resignations. The power struggle may be continued to develop a new N.U.G. Next year. ,V lg ff' . X , 1 1 1.31.