UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Reports Dec 19, 1968

Item Metadata


JSON: ubcreports-1.0117921.json
JSON-LD: ubcreports-1.0117921-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): ubcreports-1.0117921-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: ubcreports-1.0117921-rdf.json
Turtle: ubcreports-1.0117921-turtle.txt
N-Triples: ubcreports-1.0117921-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: ubcreports-1.0117921-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

The Public  Purse
Who should control the public
purse?, asks Dr. Denys K. Ford, a
UBC medical researcher. Not those
who have a direct vested interest in
the spending of such funds, he
argues. This would rule out the
'right' of faculty and students to
control University funds. His article
appears on page three.
Master Teacher
Dean Walter Gage, recipient of
the first UBC Master Teacher
Award, plans to give away the
$5,000 cash award that goes with
the honor for the purchase of
books for three undergraduate
libraries. Five other UBC
teachers were awarded
certificates of merit as
outstanding teachers. For details,
see page two.
The  President's Job
Addressing UBC's Faculty Association,
President F. Kenneth Hare said that if the
University is to raise teaching standards and
general performance, it will have to be by
self-discipline. Excerpts from his December
5 speech to the Association appear on
pages six and seven.
UBC Reports has "gone weekly."
After a Fall term of irregular but
increasingly frequent production this
publication has settled down to a regular
weekly schedule. After the Christmas break,
the paper will appear on campus every
Thursday. The last edition of each month will
also be mailed to all our known alumni, the
parents of our students, and to other friends
of the University.
The increased frequency of publication
stems from a policy decision of the editors to
try to reflect more accurately the mood of
the campus, and to provide more frequent
opportunities for discussion of University
issues in our columns. We invite students,
faculty and staff members, alumni and other
interested persons to submit contributions to
these discussions.
In the meantime the editors of UBC
Reports and the staff of the Information
Service wish all their readers a Merry
Christmas and a Happy New Year.	
r> r~ o
T> X> •—
CO 70 —*
-< O !
UBC  Space Race
Gary Hansen, a graduate student
in architecture, suggests some
unique ways for UBC to solve its
space problem and at the same
time break down barriers between
the University community and the
general public. His article appears
on pages four and five.
t-- o
»o o
o o
Dean Walter Gage, the 63-year-old deputy president, professor of
mathematics and dean of inter-faculty and student affairs at the University
of B.C., has been named the first recipient of the Master Teacher Award.
And characteristically, the man who has supervised the awarding of
millions of dollars to students in the form of prizes, scholarships, bursaries
and loans, will himself give away the $5,000 cash award that goes with the
honor for the purchase of books for three campus libraries.
He said he would divide the award for the purchase of books in the
main undergraduate library, the mathematics library and the engineering
undergraduate library.
"My decision to do this," he said, "which I hope won't be regarded as a
precedent by future winners, reflects my philosophy that teaching is not a
one-sided affair—that students enter into the teaching process.
"In a sense it is the students who have helped me to win the award. Part
of the funds I would like to see used for the purchase of books in the
engineering library, since two-thirds of my teaching load is in that faculty;
part for books for the mathematics library, because math is my discipline,
and a third part for books in the main undergraduate library."
He said he hoped that the books purchased for the engineering and
main libraries would be of a general nature—"books of general interest that
will arouse the interest of undergraduates."
Dean Gage, who teaches ten hours a week in addition to supervising
University awards, chairing a multitude of University committees and
serving as one of UBC's top administrators, has always regarded his
teaching duties as his first interest.
"I've always made it clear that I have three main interests at
UBC—teaching first, student aid second and administration third. And if I
were ever forced to make a choice among these interests, teaching would
be my first choice," Dean Gage said.
• • •
The Master Teacher Award was established this year by Dr. Walter
Koerner, chairman of UBC's Board of Governors, in honor of his brother,
Dr. Leon Koerner, one of the University's leading benefactors.
Nominees for the award were screened by a six-man committee
appointed by President F. Kenneth Hare and chaired by Dr. William C.
Gibson, head of the department of the history of medicine and science.
The committee's membership included Chancellor John M. Buchanan,
Mr. David Zirnhelt, president of the Alma Mater Society, and Mr. Stanley
Evans, president of the UBC Alumni Association.
Dr. Gibson said the committee had received 39 nominations for the
award, many of them from students, and had decided to award certificates
of merit to five other UBC teachers who were considered outstanding.
The merit certificates have been awarded to Dr. J.F. Hulcoop, associate
professor of English; Prof. Sam Black, professor of art education in the
faculty of education; Dr. David Suzuki, associate professor of zoology; Dr.
Kenji Ogawa, assistant professor of Asian studies; and Dr. Gerald F.
McGuigan, associate professor of economics and head of the Arts II
program. All five will be eligible for the Master Teacher Award in future
years, Dr. Gibson said.
"The task of choosing one outstanding teacher was an extremely
difficult one for the committee," Dr. Gibson said. "However, after long
study of supporting documents and other material, and visits to the
classrooms of some of those nominated, the committee reached the
unanimous conclusion that the more than 40 years of productive teaching
by Dean Gage merited the first award."
He said a great many of the nominations for the award had come from
students, who had particularly impressed the committee with the
supporting material which they prepared.
"Students are above all able to recognize outstanding teaching when
they come in contact with it," he said, "and the number of nominations
submitted by students is ample testimony to the fact that UBC has a solid
core of excellent teachers."
Dean William Armstrong, deputy president and head of the faculty of
applied science, in which Dean Gage chiefly teaches, said he was delighted
that the committee had honored Dean Gage by naming him the first
recipient of the Master Teacher Award.
• • •
"There is no question in my mind that he is one of the outstanding
teachers in the history of this institution," Dean Armstrong said, "and I
know that Dean Gage's colleagues and, most of all, the thousands of
students who have been lucky enough to encounter him in the classroom,
will endorse the committee's choice and hope that he will continue to be
among us as a teacher for many years to come."
Dean Gage was born in Vancouver and educated at UBC, where he
received his bachelor and master of arts degrees in mathematics and
His teaching career began in 1927 at Victoria College, then an affiliate
of UBC. He was also registrar there from 1929 to 1933, when he joined
the UBC faculty.
Dean Gage became a full professor at UBC in 1948, and the same year
was named dean of administrative and inter-faculty affairs. He was UBC's
acting president in 1967—68 prior to the arrival of President F. Kenneth
Hare, and during the fall of this year while President Hare was absent
because of illness.
To be eligible for the Master Teacher Award a candidate had to have
served at least three years at UBC at the rank of assistant professor or
above and during that time taught undergraduate courses in the winter
2/UBC Reports/December 19, 1968 Dr. Denys K. Ford, a UBC medical researcher, maintains that
students and faculty have no 'right' to be on policy-making
committees spending taxpayers' money, and the viewpoint that
they should control such committees is contrary to the
working of democracy as we know it in the western world
It seems to me that at least one
viewpoint has not been given enough
emphasis in considering student and faculty
unrest at universities. This can be
expressed in the statement that control of
the public purse should not be under the
direct control of those persons who have a
direct vested interest in the spending of
the funds.
Both faculty and students do indeed have a
direct vested interest. The economic
livelihood of the faculty and their
professional success depends directly on the
university's fiscal policies and decisions.
The comfort of students and their benefit
from university services are also an
obvious vested interest. Both students
and faculty speak through their own
associations which are direct, and very
proper, lobbies.
The university budget, like most
,        governmental budgets these days, is a
multi-million dollar proposition. The
taxpayer, who pays, has the right to demand
,       that those who are delegated to handle this
money will be answerable to the taxpayer at
election time. This is the only control the
taxpayer has over his money and this
has become the accepted method in western
democracies and recognized as the safest,
if not always the most efficient,
,     The politician attempts to spend the
taxpayer's money according to the taxpayer's
wishes, or estimated wishes, as determined
by the vote. In doing so the politician
is very unwise if he delegates responsibilities
for policy involving fiscal decisions to
any parties who have a direct vested interest
in the spending of the funds.
The public would be wisely upset if
multi-million dollar hospital budgets
were under the control of hospital
architects, hospital administrators and
doctors who undoubtedly know far more than
others about the technical details of
running hospitals. We would rightly be
uneasy if the military budget was under the
direct influence of the military or arms
manufacturers, or if the Liquor Control
Board was represented by the executives of
>      distilling companies. The Department of
Highways was recently under widespread
criticism; how much greater would the
criticism have been if asphalt and concrete
<       manufacturers and civil engineers were
controlling or even significantly
influencing policy decisions.
I submit, therefore, that neither students
nor faculty have any "right" to influence
policies that involve fiscal decisions at a
_,     university by being represented on the
boards of governors.
Dr. Denys K. Ford is associate professor in the
department of medicine in UBC's medical school. He
is also director of the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society research unit in the faculty of
It is clear that the faculty and
probably also the students have a "right"
and "duty" to be represented and heard at
the advisory board level. It is equally
clear that a board of governors would be
unwise to ignore tne views of either faculty
or students. In fact one could argue that
there should be a clear line of communication
from the faculty and students directly to
the board of governors without going
through administration. In the hospital
world, "joint conference committees" are
designated to improve communications between
medical staff organizations and the
hospital management boards.
All citizens have a right to lobby and
those with strong convictions about improving
life will, very properly, lobby whenever
the opportunity arises and at all levels of
government. Those with special interests and
knowledge in one aspect of life will
naturally and rightly press for action in
that sphere of interest. They should concede
however that they are looking at life from
their particular vantage point.
The improvement of educational
facilities, the extension of both welfare
and health services, urban renewal, the
expansion of transportation services in our
sparsely populated province and the widening
of the tax base by the promotion of new
or expanded industry are all competing for
our limited tax dollars. Our elected
representatives, who can see the overall
picture, may well choose courses with which
we disagree; nevertheless we elected them to
make these decisions and we have recourse to
the polls.
To summarize, regardless of who happens
to represent the Government in Victoria or
to be on the board of governors of the
university, the vested interests of the
students and faculty have no "right" to
be on the policy making committees which
involve the spending of taxpayers' money.
The viewpoint that they should control
such committees is absurd and contrary to
the working of democracy as we know it in the
western world in 1968.
On the other hand, the application of
constructive, intelligent, unified pressure
to both electors and elected is a requirement
for progress, and its success already
demonstrated on previous occasions.
UBC Reports/December 19, 1968/3 Graduate architecture student Gary Hansen is
shown at right standing in front of a vacant
building in Maple Tree Square, one of
Vancouver's oldest commercial areas adjacent to
the Waterfront. He suggests in the article on
these pages that the University might arrange to
rehabilitate buildings such as this in various areas
of Vancouver to relieve the demand for
additional space on the Point Grey campus. In
doing so. he suggests, the University would also
break down traditional barriers which have
stood between the academic community and
society-at-large. Photo by Mike Woods.
At this time, when the University is perplexed by the
insistent demands for more places for students in the
University, more academic breathing space, a more
favourable student/faculty ratio and demands by the
student body for a higher quality of instruction the
administration is confronted with an embarrassing
depletion of finances.
This has led to a general, as yet unofficial, acceptance
that some form of restricted enrollment is the only
realistic way, if only on a temporary basis, of
maintaining the standards of the academic community in
the absence of adequate funding.
UBC's president, Dr. F. Kenneth Hare, in an address
to the student body on Nov. 27, 1968, referred in detail
to the capital and accommodation deficiencies of the
University and to the mess of vested interests within the
society that contribute to the complication of the issues.
He stated that "The main problem in getting issues of
this kind 'fixed' lies outside the University."
If this is in fact the case; if, as we are told on good
authority, there is a direct positive relationship between
the gross national product and the number of persons in
a community with a University degree, and, if the
University is to remain a truly public institution, then
the concept of limiting the extent of interaction
between the University and the community has a direct
detrimental effect upon both the University and the
community that it serves, however immediately
beneficial the results appear to be on the University's
balance sheet.
Gary Hansen is a graduate student in UBC's school of
architecture. The theme of the article on these pages
parallels his thesis topic which is concerned with
understanding social change and the development of a
medium for facilitating greater popular participation in
decision-making which affects the human environment.
Born in England, he studied architecture at Canterbury
School of Architecture and planning at University
College, London, before coming to Canada.
4/UBC Reports/December 19, 1968
I submit that the crisis demands a totally contrary
solution to that proposed and that it is capable of
implementation entirely within the control of the
University administrative structure.
It is evident that there is a wide area of
non-understanding that separates the aspirations of the
academic community from the concept held by elected
legislators and the citizenry of the role of the University
in our society.
The solution that I venture to advocate is one
involving a dramatic, explosive extension of the field of
influence of the University.
There appear to be three inseparable concerns:
Firstly, accommodation. The supply of additional
physical facilities to house an increasing student
enrollment is indisputably not keeping up with the
demand if the "open door" policy of admitting any
prospective student who has achieved the required
standards, a policy that the University is currently
pursuing, is to be maintained.
Secondly, funding. A preponderant dependence has
been placed on the provincial government to meet the
ever-increasing demands for finances that higher
education has put upon it in recent years.
Thirdly, human resources. Like the community's
economic resources, the human resource has not been
capitalized to approach its potential.
There are two social units at variance, the University
and the outside community. There are three
commodities that we are dealing with, money,
accommodation and human resource.
Let us play roulette.
But before we do, perhaps we should ask one very
pertinent question: What are the purposes of developing
intelligence in the community?
The very  structure  of this question precludes the
separation of intelligence from community. I submit,
that reference to such a question might often be most
helpful when determining University policy.
If the University wishes to attract more funds from
the community it must make a special effort to
communicate that need. The most effective means of
communication is the one that directly affects the
greatest number of people in that community.
Suppose that we indulge in a dramatic program to
integrate the University with the community in everv
sense of the word. What are the benefits and what is the
cost for the University?
The benefit would appear to be two-fold: more
people and organizations establish a direct
identification with the needs of the University through
participation, and therefore release funds through
conventional governmental channels and through
"incentive-prompted" investment from private sources;
and secondly, more people expose themselves to a higher
level of educational experience. I shall explain the
concept of incentive-prompted investment later.
The price to the University is a loss of the
"institutional" identity traditionally enjoyed by
academics, and an administrative nightmare. Not too
high a price, I suggest.
So how do we start? Let us take a look at the
problem of University buildings.
There is confusion as to the purpose of capital
investment with respect to the University's need^.
Investment commercially is primarily for the purpose of
appreciating capital. That is, output must exceed input
in dollars. However, the output in educational
investment isn't measurable in dollars. The input is
dollars and the output is educational opportunity. It is
therefore inappropriate to justify investment in
education in purely economic terms.
Let us understand clearly then that the prime purpose y v of capital investment in educational facilities is not to
establish equity in fast-depreciating physical structures,
but to provide accommodation for the functions of
teaching and learning.
Assume     that     the     University     has     a    capital
""improvements budget of $10 million per year, and that
it commits the total sum to new physical  plant.  No
unexpended balance remains.
Now suppose that $9 million of this $10 million is
applied instead to leasing existing or new private
-•Structures, either rehabilitated or designed for the
specific use of the University, and only $1 million is
used for University construction. (There is precedent,
incidentally, for government agencies leasing rather than
purchasing space).
What are the benefits and the penalties? Let us
develop the purchase vs. rent model to clarify the
Using     the     $10     million     per    annum     capital
i improvement budget assumed and comparing two plans
of investment, "A", a direct purchase plan, and "B", a
plan to combine purchase and lease of accommodation,
we will  see very clearly that Plan  "B", incorporating
I provision for leasing accommodation, provides for the
r> »
I I HA ^^ Volume 14, No. 11-December 19,
ll^lll 1968. Authorized as second class
I I BK ■ mail by the Post Office Depart-
J J B B II ment, Ottawa, and for payment of
^^ B^ ^^ postage in cash. Postage paid at
D C D n D T Q Vancouver B.C. Published by the
H C t* U It I O University of British Columbia and
distributed free. J.A. Banham, Editor; Barbara Clgg-
horn. Production Supervisor. Letters to the Editor
should be addressed to the Information Office, UBC,
Vancouver 8, B.C.
University an increase of 4,500 per cent of the
accommodation in square feet provided by a direct
purchase plan represented by Plan "A" at the end of the
first year.
Using conservative figures of $25 per square foot for
the cost of purchasing new buildings on the campus and
the figure of $5 per square foot for the lease of private
property, $10 million under Plan "A" would purchase
400,000 square feet, with no space being provided by
lease arrangements. In Plan "B", if $1 million is applied
to the purchase of new buildings that would provide
40,000 square feet; while $9 million would be applied to
leasing space which would realize 1,800,000 square feet,
providing a total of 1,840,000 square feet of academic
space being made available.
This purchase/leasing device is designed to give the
University the flexibility required to adjust its total
space holdings each year to match its current needs,
within a limited capital improvements appropriation.
What are the implications of this proposal?
Firstly, the University would commit itself to a
decentralizing policy, for suitable existing buildings
and/or private building sites are off the University
campus. The net result automatically initiates a closer
relationship trend between members of the University
and members of the community as a whole.
The suggestion then is one of developing University
annexes, sub-campii or University college concepts
within the city. At least one department of this
University has expressed an interest in partially
relocating downtown.
This proposal is not designed to create any situation
under which faculties or departments would need to
make a decision as to whether or not they would
relocate off the campus, but rather to provide an
additional facility and expanded opportunity to interact
more directly with the community for specific programs
or concentrated community-oriented courses.
The identity of individual and group interests is
de-emphasized to enable common goals to become more
easily understood.
Such an opportunity could readily be recognized and
appreciated by the departments of planning, geography,
architecture, social work and other social sciences. The
interdisciplinary structure of Intermedia might well be
studied carefully in considering such a program.
Further, off-campus housing could be developed
privately with the help of subsidies from the University
in an amount equal to the difference in rent that a
student can reasonably be expected to pay at the current
commercial rental rates. These might take the form of
direct grants to the students.
An alternative way to use part of the capital budget
would be to subsidize private enterprise to lease land on
a 99-year basis and to build academic structures on the
Endowment Lands. Guarantee ten-year leases to cover
the period normally taken by a private developer to pay
off his indebtedness, and require perhaps that the
building be designed to be as easy to disassemble as it is
to construct, Tinker-Toy like. Technically this is very
The University may choose to extend the lease
arrangement or not, but it is not encumbered with an
obsolete building that does not meet the educational
demands of the time, and more immediately attractive,
has been able to apply the capital elsewhere. The owner,
at worst, has a fully-paid-up building that he must
relocate and re-lease.
These proposals represent the incentive-prompted
investment referred to earlier.
Concerning space, structure is the crystallization of a
process. If a structure is static and a process dynamic,
the likelihood of a structure designed to accommodate a
process or activity satisfactorily for any significant
length of time, in a period when the pace of change is
accelerating rapidly, is slight. This in itself reinforces any
serious questioning as to the advisability of investment
in permanent physical construction designed to
accommodate specific activities.
I submit that there is no shortage of space on this
campus. There is merely a gross inefficiency of space
We are still locked in on an agrarian calendar designed
to free labor to help bring in the harvest, and to
academic curricula confined to those hours when the
dew is off the grass.
I know of no evidence to support a claim that we are
more receptive in our learning at certain times during the
24-hour day than others.
Circulation patterns on campus at critical hours
during the day create excessive congestion dictated by
our gastronomic habits and the academic scheduling that
demands that we be faithful to them.
Two prime questions seem to remain unasked; what
are the most feasible ways of opening up existing space?
And more fundamentally, what space forms do we need?
Perhaps we can distinguish between those spaces that
we conceive of as primarily developed to facilitate
exchange and social intercourse and those that satisfy
the demands for personal isolation. There is very little
space on the campus for meditation and private thought.
It has been suggested that the installation of a pub
and of a sanctuary on campus would contribute
considerably to personal problem-solving without the
need for a single word to be spoken.
There is a considerable reservoir of untapped
knowledge and skill in the community that could be
drawn into participation through invitational lecturing
programs or part-time teaching assistantships. Extension
department courses could be significantly expanded and
designed to utilize the physical facilities much more
The accommodation dilemma remains with us. The
university administrator, like the city traffic engineer, is
restricted by the limitations of his professional role and
operates most effectively in that role if he accepts the
constraints imposed by his discipline. It is these
constraints, however, that impair the perspective of the
social utility that each organic sub-system strives to serve
within the community.
I submit that these proposals indicate a possible
direction for the University to develop that would
realize both educational and economic returns. I am
hopeful that refreshing ideas will evolve from other
sources to help share the burden of responsibility of
decision-making and that they will have an opportunity
to be articulated through this paper.
UBC Reports/December 19, 1968/5 THE
Dr. F. Kenneth Hare, UBC's president, addressed
the Faculty Association on December 5. What follows
are excerpts from his speech.
I'm glad to have this chance of meeting the
Association. You were parties to my appointment,
and I wouldn't have accepted the President's job on
any other terms. I am a professional university
teacher, and have always held that the future of the
universities lies in the hands of the professionals. Lay
trustees and senators can do their bit, and students a
lot. But the main burden Meson us of the profession,
the cadres that in France are called le corps
universitaire. If we fail, the universities go to the wall.
For each of us, tuum est is a personal spur.
As at present conceived the Presidency is a burden
because the university does not really know its own
mind. The President is the chief executive officer of
the university, and not simply of the Board of
Governors, as is sometimes wrongly stated: even the
Universities Act gets this clear, whatever else it leaves
obscure. Now an executive officer must know what,
rather than whom, to execute. He must work from a
body of agreed policy. Clearly he must also be
allowed certain prerogatives, and certain powers of
initiative. But these, too, must be within agreed
limits, and must spring from the needs of the
academic community.
It is my suggestion that neither policy nor
prerogatives have in fact been agreed on by the
academic profession. The President hence works in an
exasperating vacuum. The point, in my view, is that
we have failed to adjust our sights to the new scale on
which we must work, to the new relation between
society and the world of scholarship. Asa profession
we have drifted into a revolutionary situation all
I must say that we tend to exaggerate the
importance of our little revolution. One of the lessons
of events in France last May, in Columbia last spring,
in London last month is that events that seem to
threaten our very existence leave the public
unimpressed—who become vengeful, perhaps, rather
than sympathetic. On the short, tactical scale that
influences political decision—for democracies only
have strategic policies by hindsight, when historians
discover long-term consistencies that never occurred
to the perpetrators—the effects of campus rumpus are
wholly prejudicial to the universities.
So when I say we have failed to adjust our sights, I
don't mean to our new social importance (which is
real, but goes unobserved in crises), but simply that
we now serve a populist, not an aristocratic,
constituency. And this means that we have a unique,
untried problem on our hands, where our traditional
weapons of more talk, more explanation, more
polemic, more public anguish tend to work against us.
I have, however, reflected on some aspects of the
role of the President of UBC. Often I have stressed
the role of diplomat, and in this I was right. There is a
huge job to do to persuade a perplexed society that
the wells of goodwill have not run dry, and that
well-intentioned men need not fight one another over
problems   whose   cause   really   lies   outside   the
6/UBC Reports/December 19, 1968
university. And as teacher (including self-teacher!)
the President shares with the rest of the Faculty the
task of bridging the chasm of misunderstanding now
separating the politically-motivated students from our
intellectually-driven selves.
A few of us try to be motivated both ways, and a
President cannot avoid being perhaps dangerously
alert to political issues if he is to be credible at all to
the student body. I have the same feeling that I had
when I was a student in the 1930's; of impending
disaster unless all of us abandon the habit of
shrugging our shoulders at the sight of our own
I believe that we can solve the university problem
within the context of existing Canadian society,
though I am sure that we shall have to assault some of
the values of that society if we are to succeed.
Which brings me to the first of my personal angsts
or angoisses or cauchemars or what have you: no
English word quite hits the spot. It is that I also have
to play the role of non-diplomat, of brutally frank
commentator, of one who doesn't fear the
consequences for himself of saying what he thinks. I
found the prospect of having to go over to the attack
repellent—but necessary. The President's office is a
good place to find out about the failures, the
inadequacies, the prejudices and the stupidities that
have landed us where we are. Traditionally the
President bottles these up, because to reveal them
would be inexpedient, or personally and
institutionally hazardous. Reluctantly I reached the
conclusion a little while ago that if I was to do this
job I had to speak with very uncharacteristic
'I believe we can solve the university problem within the context of
existing Canadian society, though I
am sure we shall have to assault
some of the values of that society if
we are to succeed.'
Among the things that we must all attack are some
of the attitudes of our own profession, because I
think we have ourselves caused some of the trouble in
the universities, with good intentions but bad effect.
We have to criticize the society around us, which has
simply not thought out the consequences of its own
social and economic policies, the effect of which is to
underemploy, to disfranchise, to disgust morally, and
hence to alienate a substantial fraction of the world
of youth. And a third is the attitude of the people of
this province who, by their neglect of higher
education, have made a world-wide problem even
harder of solution within British Columbia.
Clearly in the present company it must be our own
professional attitudes that I tackle. Let me start with
the Faculty Association and its role. I was one of the
early presidents of the McGill Association of
University Teachers, and a prime mover at McGill of
the effort to persuade the governing body to leave
control of academic affairs to the professoriate. That
effort   has   been   largely   successful,   and  has  been
parallelled on thousands of other campuses. The
1950's and early 1960's saw the rise of Faculty power -
in North America, as chronicled with blinding
hindsight by McGeorge Bundy in the September
Atlantic. This power has been established by the
progressive acceptance of conventions rather than by
legislative change, and it is still incomplete.
Its growth has sapped the power of Presidents, I "
think wisely and inevitably, but the most striking
result is that the total power in the system has been
reduced. The junior faculty of a modern university
still feels disfranchised and unconsulted. And the
universities lack speedy and effective powers of
decision-making, of academic foresight, and of rising
to sudden crises.
Where power is diffused, it cannot quickly be
condensed again. I am cheered by the death of the
old campus despotisms, but chastened by the
inescapable need for big institutions like ours to react
decisively and quickly to change of circumstances.
Somehow we must find professional answers to this
Faculty associations have also battled, again with
good reason, to raise salaries, improve fringe benefits,
and win the right to tenure. They have succeeded
beyond the expectations of those of us who in the
1940's and 1950's really began this movement in
Canada. There is still much to do, and I've no doubt
you will do it. I feel, however, that the moment is '
upon us when the profession must also bear heavily
down upon itself as regards its obligations and
practices. As clinicians I believe we need to stiffen
our self-discipline in ways to which I'll return. To be
blunt, if we are to raise our standard of teaching, of
intellectual rigour and of general performance as
professionals, it will have to be by self-discipline.
There is no external administration to make rules ,
for us about the way we deal with students, and
governors were long ago frightened off this thorny
ground. I believe the faculty associations, like medical
and legal and engineering professional bodies, will
have to take on this embarrassing job. No one else
will do it, or can do it, though senates may try.
Of course it is unreasonable to expect such an
acceptance of professional responsibility unless the
profession also feels that it has a proper share in the
university's government. I must say right away that I
believe we have attached too much importance to the
structures and forms of university life, and too little
to the personal obligations it involves. I have worked
in universities almost wholly professor-governed,
wholly lay-governed, and with mixed boards. The
facts of academic life were much the same in all.
Nevertheless I don't feel one can expect the
academic community to discipline its own members if
it feels it is ruled from on high. In my own view
neither Duff-Berdahl nor the manifestos of this
Association go far enough. I can offer full support for
the Association's ambition to see some of its
members on the Board, but I feel that you should
really look beyond this to the more fundamental
question: does the bicameral Senate-Board system
serve us adequately?
In my view it does not. I can also support efforts
towards the involvement of junior faculty and
students in the decision-making processes, not
because of sentimental ideas about the community,
but because they, too, will have to share in the
internal disciplinary processes without which, to
quote   Eric   Ashby   in   Melbourne this summer, the JOB
disintegration of our profession will be accelerated.
"Disintegration" is a harsh word, and perhaps it is
too strong. I remember being shocked in 1956 when I
asked a senior professor of physics to join McGill
Association of University Teachers. He said curtly:
"I'm not a university teacher, I'm a physicist." I had
supposed    he   was   both.    Many   of   us   make   this
> distinction, and the temptation is always there to be
loyal to our discipline rather than to our role as
teacher. I believe this attitude to be quite wrong, and
at the root of some of our troubles with students. It
, is one thing to say "I cannot be loyal to my students
unless I am first loyal to my discipline"; this implies
what I think is true, that our professional obligation
contains a dual loyalty, the two halves of which are
inseparable. It is another thing to say "My ambition is
to advance my discipline, and my teaching must not
interfere with this ambition." In private this gets said
all the time.
How can we blame, in fact, the young scholar who
says just this? Our appointment and promotions
policies have for long stressed achievement in
research, and soft-pedalled teaching. These policies
, are not overt; but are dependent on professional
attitude. Page 27 of the Faculty Handbook actually
puts teaching at the top of the list of "criteria of
excellence"; research is second, professional
competence third, and contributions to the university
.community and the external society fourth and fifth.
I'm sure this is often not the order observed.
Certainly there is a widespread belief at UBC that
premature  devotion   to teaching is a good way of
> remaining a lifelong instructor, just as those who
practice the rhythm method of birth control are
called parents.
The point I want to stress is that professional
attitudes, not rules, underlie the present low prestige
and neglect (in some quarters) of teaching. Here, as in
a dozen other ways, we can achieve change only by
an altered outlook—in which this Association should,
in my view, have a major hand.
, I see the President as the man who has the duty to
try to detect these professional attitudes, to attempt
to alter them if they seem wrong to him (by direct
methods and not by tactful subterfuges) and to try to
-fee in himself a sort of encapsulation of the
profession's ambitions for itself, for its students and
for society. To do these things he needs all the help he
can get. Most notably he needs the following things:
(i) a critical, friendly but independent professional
association like this, to keep him up to scratch, and
to give him a body outside the hierarchy of the
university that can speak for professional interests
and obligations;
-i (ii) an effective system of internal government that
can   speedily   arrive  at  sound   decisions,   give  all
► »
'I see the President as the man who
has the duty to try to detect professional attitudes . . . and to be in
himself a sort of encapsulation of
the profession's ambitions for itself.'
members of the university a feeling of participation in
formal affairs, and permit a reasonable measure of
accepted central authority;
(iii) within this system a sort of cabinet that can
formulate policy for ratification by the larger bodies,
and provide the President with authoritative advice
when emergencies occur.
'Structural reform will fail if not accompanied by strong professional
action to update practices, shake
accepted prejudices and meet the
wave of student unrest and public
hostility constructively.'
I have recently set up an Advisory Committee,
chaired first by Acting Dean John Young and now by
Prof. Noel Hall, to examine points (ii) and (iii), as
well as the external relations of UBC. The committee
has members nominated by Senate, this Association,
the Alumni, the Alma Mater Society, and myself. I
hope and expect that it will bring in proposals for a
restructuring of the University. These will have to be
ratified by the various bodies concerned and then, we
hope, made the subject of revised provincial
legislation. Let me stress that I hope great things from
this committee. But in itself structural reform will
fail, as will the President, if it is not accompanied by
strong professional action to update practices, shake
our accepted prejudices and meet the present wave of
student unrest and public hostility constructively.
At the beginning of rny talk I said that I thought
that we did not know our own mind, that we hadn't
come to terms with our phenomenal growth and new
social position. In effect, we have imported into the
age of the multiversity much of the outlook of a
smaller, more leisurely, less populist world. We take
for granted the worthwhileness of knowledge, and of
the inevitability of its advance. Most of us, myself
included, have defended the proposition that our first
duty to society is the advancement of knowledge, not
only because this helps economic advance, but
because man feels a sort of duty to know. None of
these things weighs much with the public, who pay
our bills. Seven per cent of the G.N.P. now goes into
education, largely because it is assumed to be useful,
not desirable. In my view, we bang our heads against
a wall if we forget this fact. I don't say we should
accept the public view-but that we should never
forget it.
Nor, frankly, do these ideas weigh much with our
students. The majority, perhaps, still accept their
years at UBC as training for a job within an economic
framework they have no special urge to change. The
articulate minority that has brought us to noisy
unrest feels otherwise. They reject society in its
present guise, and condemn the university because it
serves society's ends. Neither group contains any
great number who are scholars for scholarship's sake.
So our traditional view of the liberal university is
close to meaningless to all three groups—to taxpayer,
to orthodox student, to activist alike. What we need
is a new prophet, who can reconcile these seeming
polarities and put the times a little less out of joint.
to the
Ed itor
I was interested in the November issue of "UBC
Reports", particularly in the discussion about "The
Looming Numbers Crisis."
I would remind you that although the facilities at
UBC are strained up to and perhaps beyond capacity,
our facilities at Selkirk were designed to
accommodate 300 more students than are enrolled at
present. We have 500 students and could
accommodate 800.
You can understand, perhaps, that from our point
of view, the term "crisis" seems a little strong. It has
often seemed rather strange to me that UBC
continues to accept students from this area when the
pressures upon it are so very great and space for these
freshmen is available at Selkirk.
Ross P. Fraser
Administrative Assistant
to the Principal,
Selkirk College,
Castlegar, B.C.
I have read with interest the November issue of
UBC Reports and was rather amazed that Dr. David
Bond's article was accepted for publication, as it is
completely inaccurate. It appears to me that Dr.
Bond, while perhaps understanding economics, has no
knowledge of mathematics. I would think that a man
of his standing would research his subject before
going into print.
Firstly, if we consider his first means of raising
additional money, we find that the student would be
borrowing up to $2,500 per year, for a probable total
loan of $12,500. This is based on a present average
fee of about $500, plus the $1,000 raise in fees
suggested, plus the $1,000 for living expenses. Now,
we find that the average annual income tax for a
married man, without children, having an annual
income of $25,000 is about $8,000. Therefore if a
surcharge of 1 per cent on the borrower's payable tax
was collected, for an estimated average of 40 years,
the total amount repaid would come to $3,200.
This could hardly be considered to meet Dr.
Bond's statement that "his lifetime payments would
not only pay back his loan but several others as well".
Secondly, if we assume that Dr. Bond made a mistake
and meant to say that a surcharge of 1 per cent would
be made on the borrower's income, even gross
income, the total amount repaid even if we extend
the lifetime earnings to 50 years would only amount
to $12,500 which would repay the borrower's loan
only. Needless to say, no interest would have been
collected, and in addition the value of the repayments
would be greatly reduced by inflation.
On a quick reading, the article appears to offer a
possible solution, but when one returns to earth and
applies a little simple arithmetic to the proposition, as
above, we find that it is practically worthless. Perhaps
Dr. Bond was thinking that most students would
borrow only a fraction of the amount made available,
but I doubt very much if that is the case, because if
students only borrowed a small amount they would
not sign up to a lifetime repayment basis.
G.R. Loutet
Although journalism has always ranked very low in
my scale of responsible pastimes, I have never been
moved enough to write about it.
Your recent issues of "Reports", however, have
been so good that I must let you know they are
appreciated. Possibly it is because your contributors
in the Nov. issue (No. 8) are not journalists—but
whatever the reason, every one of them seems to have
got to the basics of the problems. The entire issue,
every article, was worthwhile and excellently done.
My congratulations.
W.D. Parkinson.
B.A.Sc. '56.
UBC Reports/December 19, 1968/7 >2k. .a&V'iAttt: vi-"' *».-
-.■, jt. : -w ■
■.'■..'" •£,.-
■ t.iii t .*.■_»
-r>'     l->
jf-Si-jj ^
*** ti    «■
• '-s'
Ferry Commission found alumni brief to be unique in approach. Presenting the brief
were (left to right) Stan Evans, Nick Omelusik, Jack Stathers, Ken Martin, George
Morfitt, and chairman Sholto Hebenton. Absent were committee members John
Gercsak, Robert Mair and Graham Nixon.
Higher Education
Agency Proposed
The University of B.C. Alumni
Association has recommended the
establishment of a single agency to
co-ordinate post-secondary education
in British Columbia.
The agency, in essence, would
co-ordinate the academic and financial
affairs of the three public universities,
the community colleges, and technical
and vocational schools.
The proposal was made in a brief
presented November 28 to deputy
education minister Dr. G. Neil Perry,
who is heading an advisory committee
reviewing planning and operations of
B.C.'s public universities. The brief is
the result of five months study by the
association's Government Relations
The chairman of the committee,
Sholto Hebenton, BA '57, BA, BCL
(Oxon), LLM (Harvard), said Dr. Perry
received the brief "with interest" but
was non-committal. Association director Jack Stathers, BA '55, MA '58
noted that Dr. Perry had said the
alumni brief was quite different from
"The distinguising feature of our
brief is that, while others might tend
to be more protective of the interest
of faculty and the institutions, our
view was more general," Stathers said.
"I think we felt there was a need for
more co-ordination and control than
that expressed by others."
The alumni brief said there are
three proven systems for centralized
planning of higher education:
—A governing board that coordinates and governs all public
institutions of higher learning within a
province or state;
—A co-ordinating agency empowered to co-ordinate and control
certain selected activities of the
institutions but restrained from exercising general governing or administrative powers;
-Voluntary representation or a
meeting of representatives of each
institution to co-ordinate activities of
common concern.
The alumni committee said it found
the   co-ordinating   agency  to  be the
8/UBC Reports/December 19. 1968
most suitable organization for the job.
"The establishment of goals by the
co-ordinating agency and the independent execution of these goals by the
institutions encourages a thorough and
rigorous review of results and reduces
the opportunity for institutions to
cover their mistakes," said the brief.
"There is more autonomy with a
co-ordinating agency than with a
governing board. Such autonomy increases the likelihood of academic
initiative  by   individual   institutions."
The committee clearly opposes the
idea of one governing board as
proposed by the Simon Fraser University Senate. The fear is that that
system would have too great a
centralizing effect.
"The difference between Simon
Fraser's proposal and ours is the
difference between having one university and having three universities," said
Sholto Hebenton.
"The difference between the two
ideas is that with a governing board,
that top board gets involved in
executing decisions as well as making
them, but this would not happen with
our proposal because the universities
would retain their individual boards."
The brief said the co-ordinating
agency should have nine to 15
members and a full-time director paid
about the same as a Dean—$22,000 to
$25,000. The members of the coordinating agency would be of high
calibre and would not be paid.
Some academics would be included
in the body, but each individual
institution would not be represented,
though all types of institutions would
The specific functions of the
agency would include: determination
of academic and financial priorities
within the system; initiation, approval
or rejection of new faculties, schools
and departments; co-ordination of
admission standards and transfer procedures; recommendation to the
government of the total appropriation
to the system; and division of the
funds among the institutions.
By Dr. W.C. Gibson
I sometimes think that what this university needs more than anything else is
a little imagination. Because of rapid growth the university faces complex
problems—shortage of funds, overcrowding, traffic congestion, student
unrest—which cry out for bold solutions. The safe, conventional approach does
not seem adequate for the job. Nor does the mere infusion of more money. We
must instead begin searching for more imaginative solutions. And I would like
to help begin that process by raising a few questions.
I wonder what would happen if South West Marine Drive, from 41st Avenue
to Totem Park, were made a one-way, two-lane entry to UBC from 7:30 a.m.
to 9:30 a.m. and a one-way, two-lane exit from the campus from 3:30 p.m. to
5:30 p.m. daily? Except for these stated periods it would of course continue as
it now is, a two-way road.
The money which might otherwise go into paving the present wide slash in
the university forest could be used to take the tourist traffic down the sloping
side of the cliff at the point where the divided four-lane highway now runs
out, along a dyke enclosing an Olympic rowing course (6,000 feet long by 600
feet wide by 10 feet deep), and then along an anti-erosion road at the foot of
the cliffs below Cecil Green Park and the School of Social Work, and so into
the city by joining North West Marine Drive at Spanish Banks. A 2,000-boat
marina could even be built at the north-west tip of Point Grey to amortize all
road costs.
I wonder what would happen if students who now leave their cars on Blanca
Street in such profusion were able to leave them in an extensive,
specially-created, band-like parking area stretching along the west side of
Blanca from 11th Avenue to 16th Avenue? Campus traffic jams would be
reduced, and an improved bus service from Blanca to the campus would
become more feasible economically.
I wonder what would happen if the Alumni Association were finally allowed
to take over the lease on the so-called "University Golf Course" from the
construction company that built it? The income could go into university
coffers for a change, along with the $200,000 a year now contributed by UBC
graduates for a variety of purposes.
I wonder what would happen if "the quiet campus" on Saturdays and
Sundays were to be developed as "A Weekend University" for those who have
to earn their bread and that of their families from Monday to Friday? After a
mammoth conversion of the UBC timetable to a five-day week, our vast plant
remains idle on the weekends except for graduate students and library users.
I wonder what would happen if a "Free University" for those clamoring for
it, were set up at, say, the old Air Force Base at Jericho, where residences and
lecture halls—even large hangers for indoor sports—are available? The tuition
fees of UBC students desiring to transfer to such an institution of
self-instruction could be refunded in full at any time during the college year.
The rest of UBC's students could be left to pursue their education in peace.
Weekend students might take, during one winter session, the equivalent of
the two courses taken in the presently concentrated summer session. The
teaching might be done by younger faculty members who would expect, in
return, to be allowed to pursue their research without interruption from
Monday to Friday.
What do you think would happen if these things were done?
Dr. Gibson, BA '33, MSC (McGill), PhD (Oxon), MD, CM (McGill) is a
professor of the history of medicine and science. The Viewpoint column is
open to any alumni for the free expression of opinion. Contributions should be
sent to: Communications Director, UBC Alumni Association, 6251 Northwest
Marine Dr., Vancouver 8, B.C.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items