UF OUR UNIVERSITIES By PHYLLIS CLARKE What was started by two Carlton professors—the struggle for Canadian universities — is already having repercussions across the country. J Is there a de-Canadianization of the universities? According to Professors James Steele and Ro- bin Mathews there certainly is. Here are some examples ag they presented them at a session of the University League for Social Reform: © “In the past seven years the proportion of university teachers. rose to 72 percent; in 1968 it was probably about 74 percent.” e “Between 1963 and 1965, Canadians earned about 1,272 Ph.D.’s and 8,513 M.A.’s for a combined total of 9,785. During the same period some 1,284 new appointments went to Canadians while some 1,756 appointments went to scholars from abroad. During the subsequent two-year period, from 1965 to 1967, some 1,839 Canadians earned Ph.D.’s and another 12,312 earned M.A.’s for a total pool of 14,151. Yet during this period only 1,320 new positions went to Cana- dians while some 3,396 posts were assumed by scholars from abroad. Thus a much smaller proportion of Canadians earn- ing higher degrees were employ- ed in 1965-7 than were employed in 1963-5, Estimates for 1968 in- dicate that this trend is con- tinuing. 1,128 Ph.D.’s and 8,324 M.A.’s were awarded in 1967-8 to make a total pool of 9,452. Canadian universities took on about 2,642 additional staff in the autumn of 1968, and of these an estimated 1,946 came from abroad whereas only about 696 were Canadian.” @ “The Canadian university will become a truly ‘alien’ uni- versity, for it will be staffed by m TE CANT ATI = an increasingly large majority of scholars whose primary com- munity is not the Canadian com- munity; whose primary national experience is mot Canadian; whose primary interests as they radiate from a central scholarly study into the world of men and affairs do not merge with and show respect for the seriousness of Canadian problems and the unique relevance of their solu- tions. In fact, as we are observ- ing at this very time, the influx of foreign halare does not merely imply that Canadian mat- ters will be taught by scholars unused to them, unfamiliar with their context, unable to recog- nize avenues of analysis which are of peculiar relevance to the community. No. We observe that Canadian matters are pushed aside, considered parochial, or examined confidently with in- strumentalities forged in other nations to meet non-Canadian standards, Indeed, the Canadian university will become a force to divide Canadians one from the other, to suppress the Cana- dian past and to destroy a uniquely excellent Canadian fu- ture.” e “The report that at Water- loo University this year four American literature courses are being offered and no Canadian literature course exemplifies the way Canadian studies of other kinds are being handled in Can- ada. But if the Canadian student is being discriminated against today, the Canadian community will feel the sting of the discri- mination tomorrow.” They offer as a solution the advertising of university posts, to get away from the informal, grape-vine system now in prac- tice. In Carlton they proposed that two-third of the faculty be Canadian. For students, one result of de- Canadianization is the impossi- bility of pursuing studies on Canadian themes. In one univer- sity, for example, while 59 per- cent of the graduate students wanted to deal with Canadian topics, only 17 percent of the staff were in a position to super- vise such studies. Other findings bear this out. For example, Krista Maeots in the Ottawa Citizen reported: e There are 15 Americans on York University’s sociology fa- culty, and one Canadian. e Many departments at York are 30-50 percent staffed by Americans. @ The political economy or po- litical science departments at Glendon College, York, McMas- ter and University of Toronto all have American chairmen. @ Glendon College does not have a single Canadian teaching full-time in political science and McMaster has only one. @ The promotion and tenure committee at U of T has three Americans out of its five mem- bers. e Almost 40 percent of the academic staff of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Educa- tion is American and it is this institution that makes recom- mendations on school curriculum and teaching methods to the de- partment of education. The reaction in university cir- cles to the de-Canadianization question has been mixed. Obviously, as one professor has put it, in a country with a branch plant economy you de- velop a branch plant university. Many “‘continentalists” are to be found in staffs, who like the monopoly capitalist establish- ment they serve, deny national needs and are uninterested in the preservation of the Canadian identity. They oppose the Steel-Math- ews proposals under the guise of concern for the best scholars or the denial of relevance of Cana. dinian content in specific courses, Others call the continentalists — “quislings and colonials” and feel that Canadians have to fight — on the issue. They are running, however, into those that agree, © but hesitate to risk an open struggle. Then there are those who think © Steele and Mathews are right but — are concerned that it has become a “public” issue. We university — elite, they seem to say, shall not . allow the masses to interfere. Interestingly enough, when — Steele and Mathews were inter. — viewed on The Day It Is, the CBC received one of the largest’ number of phone calls and all agreed with the two professors and all asked the media to pay more attention to the question. — Last weekend in Toronto the University League for Social Re. form spent a full day on this question. Steele - Mathews paper, heard presentations from Alan Thomas on the Americanization of the whole field of education, from Neal and Ellen Wood on the In addition to the they direction of Canadian political — science and by Mel Watkins on economics, There seems no doubt that this question will neither die on the — campus nor off. The fight against — of de-Canadianiza- tion of the universities is part © the and parcel of the whole demo- cratic struggle of Canadians for their sovereignty. And it’s the same class and © its representatives who have sold out Canada’s economic de- — velopment, made Canada a US. puppet in foreign policy, who- are part of the dismantling of | Canadianism in the universities. © This is why it is unlikely that © any solution will come from within the universities them- — selves but only from the type of pressure that a concerned © public can bring to bear. alf dewhurst Task orce favors state control After spending two years and $1.5 million of public funds the Woods Task Force has brought forth a report the main thrust of which is towards more state control over the organized labor movement, including the inter- nal affairs of unions. The Report is well larded with flattering comments about the role of trade unions and the concept of free collective bar- gaining. Nevertheless its main bias is to restrict labor’s rights and activities and set the stage for new and more restrictive labor laws both federally and provincially. It will be argued in some quarters that the Report is not all bad for it makes a number of proposals in respect to picket- ing, certifications and other im- provements in labor legislation long demanded by labor. But these proposed concessions should not blind the labor move- ment to the main burden of the Report’s recommendations. And even the Report’s favor- able recommendations are hedg- ed, For instance, mass picketing would be unlawful. Strike- breaking would be legalized through provision to allow a striker to replace a strikebreak- PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 3, 1969—Page 4 er during the course of a strike. The Task Force basic proposi- tions, if incorporated into labor legislation, would move labor- employer relations in the direc- tion of a corporate set-up with government as a third “partner’’. They should be vigorously re- jected by organized labor. One of these recommendations would replace the present Can- ada Labor Relations Board, made up of employer and union representatives plus a neutral chairman, with a so-called pub- lic board with unprecedented new powers. The new board would have the power to con- solidate existing units into one bargaining unit and order multi- union, multi-plant and multi-em- ployer bargaining. The board would also have the power to determine different units for dif- ferent purposes, extending multi- unit. bargaining to such specific questions as pensions, health and welfare, training plans and seniority. and would eliminate the union hiring hall. The imme- diate target of such govern- mental interference is the build- ing and construction industry. The Report’s take-off for this proposition trades on the pres- sing need recognized by large sections of the trade union movement for bargaining unity, union alliance, amalgamation and mergers to meet the new conditions created by modern industrial development. But here any similarity of Task Force thinking with labor’s needs ends. For the Task Force would give the power of decision-mak- ing into the hands of the state. An instrument of the state would arbitrarily rule and im- plement decision on bargaining units and consequently on bar- gaining tactics, as well as on the fate of the unions concern- ed. These unprecedented powers proposed for the new board need to be taken in conjunction with the suggested powers to be given to the three-man public interest disputes commission proposed by the Task Force. The proposed public interest disputes commission would be empowered to move, at its own discretion, into any industry under federal jurisdiction where a work stoppage would, in the opinion of the commission, be detrimental to the public inter- ests. In such cases the commis- sion would have the power to decide upon the bargaining pro- cedure, including binding arbi- tration. Further the commission would have the power to propose to parliament the measures to take to end a strike if one should take place. : A third proposal of the Report which must also be taken to- gether with the two already mentioned is the so-called bill of rights for union members to be administered by a govern- ment appointed public review board. The proposal for such a board is likened to that of a union-established public review board, such as is the case in the UAW. But there can be no such comparison. For the board pro- posed by the Task Force would be responsible to the govern- ment and it would be empower- ed to set union dues, assess- ments and initiation fees. Furth- er, it would have the power to determine if, and how, unions could make financial contribu- tions to a political party. All of this constitutes government con- trol over vital aspects of union life. It could be the prelude to all-in government control. The significance of the Woods Task Force’ proposals for strengthened state control of the trade unions lies in the real pos- sibility of these propositions be- — coming guidelines for labor le- gislation in the provinces as well — as federally. Perhaps such legis- lation has already been drafted, — or, is on the drafting boards. In this connection it must be borne in mind that the Report as tabl- ed in the House contained no surprises. Its main ideas had been leaked months ago. It is well-known that Ontario's Minister of Labor had indicated — that Ontario was awaiting the tabling of the Woods Task Force report before proceeding with any changes in Ontario’s labor laws. It is equally well known that Saskatchewan has incorpor- ated many of the Rand Report proposals in its labor laws whilst labor’s attention has been cen: tered on how the Rand Report would affect Ontario. The moral of this, is not to be caught nap: ping. For the big corporations and governments are determine to shackle the organized labot movement in legal chains. The only answer is a labor bill of rights enshrined in federal and provincial laws codifyin8 the hard-won rights of labor it its unremitting search for a bet: ter life for all who labor by ha and brain.