UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Reports Mar 11, 1971

Item Metadata


JSON: ubcreports-1.0118498.json
JSON-LD: ubcreports-1.0118498-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): ubcreports-1.0118498-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: ubcreports-1.0118498-rdf.json
Turtle: ubcreports-1.0118498-turtle.txt
N-Triples: ubcreports-1.0118498-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: ubcreports-1.0118498-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 1 '■": * ' u
The presidents of the UBC Faculty
Association and the Alma Mater Society
Tuesday issued a joint statement
deploring the disruption of Saturday's
Vancouver Institute meeting at which '
federal Minister of Justice John Turner
vyas prevented from delivering a prepared
speech. (See story at right).
In their statement. Faculty
Association President Peter Pearse and
AMS President Tony Hodge said the
incident "represents an alarming
interference with the principle of free
expression which we can only hope will
not recur."
Here is the full text of the statement:
"The disruption of the speech by the
federal Minister of Justice on the campus
of the University of British Columbia
last Saturday evening is deeply
disturbing. As President of the Faculty
Association and President of the Alma
Mater Society, we can only deplore the
actions of those who attempt to obstruct
the free expression of ideas within the
"We emphasize that this meeting was
an activity of the Vancouver Institute,
which is not a part of the University; and
therefore the University is not
responsible for what happened at the
meeting. We are concerned not just
because the incident occurred on the
University campus, nor because the
obstructed speaker was an elected
Minister of the Crown; although these
circumstances sharpen our feeling of
outrage. The academic community has a
special interest in protection of the right
of free expression — a right which we
have consistently insisted upon for
ourselves, and which we shall continue
to defend for all.
"The faculty and students of the
University of British Columbia are
justifiably proud of the tradition of free
expression and lawful dissent at this
University. The incident of last Saturday
evening is regrettable in itself, but it
represents an alarming interference with
the principle of free expression which we
can only hope will not recur."
HECKLERS prevented Federal Minister of Justice
John Turner from delivering a prepared speech
Saturday to a meeting of the Vancouver Institute,
a non-University organization which meets on
campus. Demonstrator in front row holds a
placard which has written on it the slogan which
was   chanted    by   the   dissidents   throughout   the
meeting — "No free speech for the Quebecois, No
free speech for Turner." Attempts by Institute
President Patrick Thorsteinsson, a Vancouver
lawyer, and Turner to get the meeting started
proved futile. Meeting broke up 45 minutes after
its scheduled start at 8:15 p.m. Photo by David
Margerison, UBC Photo Department.
Minister Silenced
At Chaotic Meeting
The disruption of Saturday's Vancouver Institute
meeting at UBC was a classic demonstration of the
dangers of which Justice Minister John Turner had
planned to warn his audience.
"We hear the distraught voices of those who would
tear down all that we have built," Turner had written
in his prepared text (see The Speech That Never Was,
Pages Six and Seven I.
But the "distraught voices" howled so loudly for
45 minutes that he finally gave up attempts to read
his speech.
"We live in an age in which violence has almost
become respectable," Turner had planned to say.
But he was prevented from reading those words by
verbal and physical violence in the eminently
respectable setting of the Vancouver Institute. (The
Institute is a non-University organization which meets
weekly on campus during the winter for a series of
lectures designed to improve "town-gown" relations).
"Protest and turbulence everywhere overwhelm
our senses," Turner had written.
And the senses of everyone at the meeting were
overwhelmed by turbulence and protest, including
one fist fight and several other threatened assaults as
well as slogan-chanting.
"It is all too easy for demands for dialogue to give
way to disruption and for participation to yield to
provocation," read Turner's text.
And his planned dialogue was replaced by
disruption; participation by many members of his
audience from the very beginning was provocative.
"There can be no doubt," Turner had planned to
say, "listening can no longer be a passive activity."
But for the 50 or so demonstrators who broke up
Turner's meeting, listening was not merely not a
passive activity; it was an activity that they were
simply not prepared to engage in.
The demonstrators — including some students
from UBC and Simon Fraser University, women's
liberationists, hippies, Yippies and assorted street
people — had not come to hear Turner.
They had come, under the aegis of the Free
Quebec Free Canada Committee, to make it
impossible for Turner to voice his prepared defence
of his actions and those of the federal government in
the handling of the "apprehended insurrection" in
Quebec last fall.
The radicals had made no secret of their planned
Both the Georgia Straight, Vancouver's
underground newspaper, and The Ubyssey made
special mention of the Vancouver Institute meeting
earlier in the week and reported that demonstrators
would gather at the Student Union Building an hour
before the 8:15 p.m. lecture.
The focal point of the demonstration was the War
Measures Act and the regulations passed under it as
well as the subsequent Public Order (Temporary
Measures) Act, which Turner said in his undelivered
speech "were specifically drawn to meet the FLQ
threat in Quebec — and only that threat."
"No free speech for the Quebecois," the
demonstrators chanted at intervals throughout the
meeting. "No free speech for Turner."
Perhaps it was the title of the lecture — "Law and
Please turn to Page Eight
See ATTEMPTS Senate Gets a Flag
UBC's Senate is now the proud possessor of a
Canadian flag, thanks to the Students' Council.
The flag was presented to Senate Feb. 24 by a
group of 24 students, most of them members of
Students' Council, led by AMS President Tony
The    good-natured    interruption    of    Senate
Three Science
Heads Resign
Three department heads in the University of B.C.'s
Faculty of Science have resigned effective June 30,
but will continue as full professors in their
They are Prof. G.H. Neil Towers of the
Department of Botany, Prof. W.H. Mathews of the
Department of Geology and Prof. William S. Hoar of
the Department of Zoology.
Prof. R.F. Scagel will relinquish his appointment
as associate dean of the Faculty of Science on June
30 to succeed Prof. Towers as head of Botany. Prof.
Scagel's new appointment was approved at the UBC
Board of Governors' March meeting.
In an open letter to faculty, staff and students.
Prof. Hoar said his decision to resign as head wasn't
based on a sense of frustration and no one should
attempt to give it mysterious or devious
He said he has been part of UBC for a quarter of a
century, during which it expanded from a small
college to a major university.
"I believe it (the period of expansion) is essentially
finished and that the next period — one of
consolidation — will require a new and different type
of decision-making which should be faced with the
fresh ideas of a younger man.
"I am also conscious," he said, "of
recommendations of several national and local study
groups with respect to advisable terms of headship in
large departments such as ours.
"The consensus is that a desirable term is five to
ten years with a review at some intermediate point. I
subscribe to this view and can see cogent reasons why
my decision should not be delayed for another year
or more."
Prof. Hoar said that he put aside several projects
when he took on headship of the department in 1964
and is anxious to get back to them.
Prof. Mathews, a UBC graduate and member of the
faculty since 1952, has been head of the geology
department since 1964. He plans a year's leave of
absence in 1971-72 to undertake an air photo study
of two major ice sheets in northeastern B.C. and the
Northwest Territories.
Prof. Towers joined the UBC faculty in 1964 as
head of the Botany department. He is currently On
leave of absence doing research at the University of
East Anglia in Norwich, England.
Prof. Robert Scagel, who succeeds Prof. Towers, is
a Canadian-born UBC graduate who joined the
faculty in 1952. He was named assistant dean of
science in 1965 and associate dean in 1969.
Tests Voluntary
The writing of a series of aptitude and
achievement tests, which has been compulsory since
1961 for all students entering UBC for the first time,
has again been placed on a voluntary basis.
UBC's Senate voted Feb. 24 to end compulsory
testing on the recommendation of Mr. A.F. Shirran,
director of the Office of Student Services which
administers the tests.
Mr. Shirran told Senate that compulsory testing
was introduced in 1961 because of a failure rate of 32
per cent in the first year. UBC's first-year failure rate
has now been reduced to 12 to 13 per cent, he said,
and many students regard the compulsory tests as an
This results in antagonism toward the counselling
service and may retard the work of counsellors, Mr.
Shirran said.
Placing the tests on a voluntary basis means that
those  students who  seek  assistance  will   get more
intensive service from counsellors.
2/UBC Reports/March 11, 1971
proceedings by the students came shortly after Senate
had approved a motion on Canadian content in UBC
courses without debate.
Mr. Hodge told Senate, in a short address, that the
group had come to present "a gift we hope will bridge
the gap of generations and at the same time remind
the Senate where it is geographically located."
At the conclusion of the flag presentation
President Walter H. Gage, as chairman of Senate,
remarked that Senate was "about ten minutes ahead
of the students," since it had already passed the
Canadian content motion.
Various versions of a motion on Canadian content
in UBC courses were debated at two previous
meetings of Senate. At its January meeting Senate
asked President Gage to establish an ad hoc
committee to draft yet another motion.
Here is the full text of the motion passed on Feb.
"Whereas members of Senate are concerned that
students, in their academic progress, should have
broad opportunities to understand the Canadian
heritage and to assess the future of Canada:
"Senate recognizes our continuing commitment to
encourage Canadian as well as international outlooks
and urges faculty to renew its concern to ensure that
Canadian content and illustrative material are
available to students where appropriate to the
academic objectives of courses offered."
What follows is a partial text of Mr. Hodge's
address to Senate:
"It is indeed our pleasure this evening to visit with
the Senate, such a grandiose and auspicious collection
of some of the most verbal ladies and men in Canada.
"Indeed our intentions are of the highest calibre
and we hope our brief intrusion into this parliament
is not taken as the beginning of the revolution,
but . . .as an indication of an ongoing interest in the
business of this University's governing academic
"This evening we come to offer a gift of good will,
a gift we hope will bridge the gap of generations and
at the same time remind the Senate where it is
geographically located.
"We do not wish to prejudice any debates that
may be taking place now or in the future for. . .the
academic must be constantly reminding himself to
look at both sides of the story and come to no
decision wherever possible.
"On behalf of all the students of UBC we have the
pleasure to present the Senate of this University with
the flag of Canada.
"We, Students' Council, by the grace of God rulers
of the UBC student body, to Senate, by the same
grace our fraternal partners in University government
and petty politicking, present greetings and brotherly
"As our ancestors, namely, the founding fathers of
Confederation and landed immigrants, established a
distinctive nation loyal to Her Majesty Queen
Victoria and her august successors, with its own
distinctive cultural traits and paradoxes;
"And as we abhor the pernicious influence of
creeping republican influence from the south, a
nation known to have perfidiously rebelled against
His Majesty King George;
"And because we believe that Your Love and
Nobility share our concern for the preservation of our
great nation's cultural magnificence and balmy
"So do we urge your Serenity to deign to decree
that all shall be exerted and all ventured to promote
Canadian studies where it is academically appropriate.
"To further express our brotherly love and
inestimable esteem, we present you with the
renowned colors of our nation, that they may
henceforth adorn your walls as a reminder of our
terrible and magnificent nation's manifold destiny.
"Given on the fourth day before the Kalends of
March, in Universitia Endowmentia, by unanimous
will of Students' Council, with joy in Christ, to the
greater glory of God, Canada, and the Queen,
Appointed 9
Canadian-born Dr. Muriel Uprichard has been
appointed the new head of the University of British
Columbia's School of Nursing.
The appointment was approved by the UBC Board
of Governors at its March meeting and is effective
July 1, 1971.
Dr. Uprichard comes to UBC from the School of
Nursing of the University of California at Los Angeles
where she was senior lecturer in nursing and associate
research psychologist. Before joining the faculty of
UCLA in 1965, Dr. Uprichard was associate professor
at the University of Toronto's School of Nursing.
At both universities Dr. Uprichard lectured on
such subjects as "Theories of Learning in the
Teaching of Nursing," "Curriculum Building in
Schools of Nursing," and "Teaching in Schools of,
Dr. Uprichard did post-doctoral studies in public
health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She
holds a doctorate in educational psychology from the
University of London Institute of Education and an
M.A. from Smith College, Northampton, Mass.
Born in Regina, Dr. Uprichard completed her
honors B.A. degree Magna Cum Laude at Queen's
University in Ontario. At that time she was awarded
several scholarships to permit further study and in
1944 she became a British Council Scholar. One
student is chosen annually from all Canadian
university graduates to receive this honor. Dr.
Uprichard is a life member of the British Council
Scholar's Association.
Among other honors which have accrued to Dr.
Uprichard is a citation in 1952 by the West German
Red Cross for outstanding service to displaced
In 1964-65 she was consultant to the Royal
Commission on Health Services of Canada. Dr.
Uprichard was responsible for the section of the
report dealing with the improvement of patient care
through more effective utilization of nurses.
Dr. Uprichard was also honored for her teaching
ability in 1969 when she was nominated by students
and staff of the UCLA School of Nursing for the
alumnae award for distinguished teaching. In 1970
she was invited to be a member of the board set up to
study the implementation in California of the Report
of the National Commission for the Study of Nursing
and Nursing Education.
Dr. Uprichard has published widely and is a
frequent contributor to such Canadian professional
journals as The Canadian Nurse and the Canadian
Journal of Public Health. In 1969 on the occasion of
the 14th Quadrennial Congress of the International
Council of Nurses she contributed an article entitled
"Ferment in Nursing" to the International Review of
Nursing. Professor Walter Young, head of the Department of Political Science, argues in the brief below
that rank serves no useful purpose in the University and should be discarded in favor of the
universal designation "professor." The brief has been in the hands of members of UBC's Faculty
Association for some weeks and will probably be debated at an Association meeting today.
Although by tradition it would seem that rank has
always been with us, not in recent times have we
examined its utility, its purposes and its consistency.
It is the argument of this brief that rank serves no
useful purpose in the University, that moreover it is
inconsistent with the goals of the University, engages
an unjustifiable amount of faculty time, and is a
constant source of rancor, suspicion and mistrust.
And, at the present time, it bears no relation
whatsoever to the salary scale.
Presumably rank indicates, in a public way, the
University's recognition of a faculty member's
abilities and service as a scholar, teacher and
University citizen. The presumption is that professors
are qualitatively better scholars, citizens and teachers
than associate professors who are, in their turn, better
than assistant professors, who are better than
instructors. In fact, of course, this is not so.
Promotion is as much a function of length of service
as anything since, clearly, no one who is kept on
faculty and granted tenure is presumably deficient in
the three categories and most, if not all who stay will,
in the fullness of time, become professors. Perhaps
this was not always so; it is the case now.
Picture by UBC Photo Department
Not infrequently attempts are made to establish
sets of criteria for promotion such that a given rank
will presumably reflect some measurable difference
from the rank below it. Despite the earnestness of
these efforts and the apparent good will of the
committees attempting to apply the criteria, the
result is more labor, more invidiousness. The criteria
masquerade as quantifiable, as if this is justification:
number of books, number of articles, number of
pages, percentage of student support in teaching
evaluation. Yet anyone who examines the results of
the system across the University will see that fairness
has not been achieved and pragmatic considerations —
market, compassion, favoritism — have not been
eliminated. The assertion of standards and
steadfastness in their application is illusory.
Moreover, were this not so, the relevance of rank to
the goals of a university would remain
If we were to grant that rank did in fact indicate
qualitative differences, it is manifest that the relative
importance of various aspects of each of the three
areas of service, and of the areas as between
themselves, varies markedly from faculty to faculty
and, within faculties, from department to
department. What earns a professorship in one faculty
would only just merit an associate professorship in
another, while in some departments would be
considered only a basis for tenure. Yet the public
accolade of promotion makes no such distinctions. A
professor, it is assumed, is a professor is a professor.
If in fact it was possible to assess service equitably
across the University there would still be no serious
justification for rank. Presumably, in the pursuit of
knowledge, all are colleagues, all are students.
Scholarly investigation gains no validity from the
rank of the investigator. It must stand on its merits as
scholarship. Truth is not more true by virtue of its
issue from the pen of the full professor rather than
from that of the assistant professor. Scholarship,
teaching and service to the University community are
intrinsically meritorious; they do not benefit in any
sense from being performed by men of a particular
It is equally clear that the notion that scholars,
teachers and citizens need to be rewarded by
promotion for their achievement is specious. The
"publish or perish" dogma has been soundly
condemned by officials of this University often
enough that further condemnation hardly seems
necessary. But though this University officially
denounces the dogma, it nevertheless enshrines it in
the system of rank, for it is an established fact that
without an "adequate" publication record,
promotion is denied. Recent events have made it clear
that scholarly production is a necessary condition for
promotion and tenure. Rank, it has been argued, is
good for productivity. Yet this must be confronted as
a corrosive doctrine. One does research because one is
a scholar, one teaches because one believes in
education, one participates in the University
community because one accepts the responsibility to
do so. These done from ambition are reprehensible
and suspect.
There is nothing that is properly the purpose of
the University that is better done because of the
system of rank. It can, indeed, be argued that because
of rank some things are much less well done.
At the present time the administration of the
system of promotion consumes a wholly unwarranted
amount of faculty time and energy. The process
begins in September at the departmental level, there
involving meetings, evaluation of colleagues,
preparation of lengthy dossiers and the soliciting of
opinions from faculty at other universities. At this
level the procedure sows discord, acrimony and
suspicion. Faculty members who are considered but
not recommended naturally view their senior
colleagues with something less than warm respect.
Those recommended but ranked low are equally
distressed. The department head, seldom a figure of
universal affection, burdened with the paperwork, is
often subject to countless hours of argument and
caustic analysis by the parties concerned.
The next stage involves the dean of the faculty and
an advisory committee. Dossiers are read and debated
and hours consumed. Heads whose lists have been
truncated harass the dean and flood his office with
further evidence.
The final stage is the President's senior
appointments committee, where essentially the same
procedure is followed. The amount of time involved
in what can only be seen, at best, as a fruitless
adventure in pursuit of the irrelevant, is vast. And A,
who did not make it this year, will probably make it
next; B, who did, is no better off than before and C
will harbor an unscholarly dislike of his colleagues for
some time for excluding him from the department list
for reasons which, to him at least, will stand no close
There was a time when rank and salary were
linked. That is no longer true. Today, rank and salary
are separate. Then, at least, promotion meant a
substantial pay increase. Today, rank means no more
than the successful transit of three levels of
University bureaucracy, no mean feat admittedly, but
an exercise devoid of any intrinsic value and
fundamentally at odds with academic goals.. And if
salary floors are to be re-established, it makes more
sense to base them on years of service and experience
than on rank.
At the present time there is no explicit
relationship between rank and tenure although it is
customary to appoint full professors with tenure. The
proposal in this paper is not directed toward the
procedures concerning granting or denying tenure.
They are properly a separate question.
The University should abandon the present system
of rank, having in its place the occupational
designation "professor," which is what the public at
large recognizes in any case, such fine distinctions as
are made of assistant, associate and full being lost
upon the coarser mind. One is hired by this
University to perform the function of professor....
That other more ancient institutions still cling to
rank is no argument in defense of the status quo.
Some have done away with their Senate and so far we
eschew that particular example. This University is
both large enough and well enough established to
determine its own style and set an example for
I would move that: this body recommend to the
Board of Governors that the present system of rank
be abandoned and that it be replaced by the
occupational designation "professor" to be applied to
all full time academic employees of the University.
UBC Reports/March 11, 1971/3 OUTLOOK FOR TH
The development of UBC's Library during the
1960s is detailed In the 1969-70 report of Librarian
Basil Stuart-Stubbs to the UBC Senate. What follows
are excerpts from the concluding section of the
report, which deals with the outlook for the 1970s
Through its functions of teaching, research and
publication, the University is at one time the creator,
user, recorder and transmitter of knowledge. Nothing
short of a global disaster seems likely to slow the
rapidly increasing growth of knowledge, and its
consumption by greater and greater numbers of
people. A comparison of the University's Calendars
for 1960/61 and 1969/70 should be enough to
convince anyone that this University is responding
well to the universal process of intellectual
development, and that this process will result by
1980 in a curriculum even more comprehensive and
The Library acquires, organizes, preserves and
disseminates knowledge, and is thus deeply involved
in this process. The implications of present trends are
clear enough: there will be higher levels of demand
from more people for an even more massive body of
information. The Library will be expected to
guarantee access to this recorded knowledge, and as
knowledge becomes more complex and abundant, to
provide more simple methods of access.
This formidable assignment may be further
complicated by a diminution of financial support. If
the next decade followed the pattern of the last, the
University's operating budget would be about
$163,000,000 by 1980, and the Library's about
$22,000,000, which would represent nearly a
doubling of support in terms of University budget
over 1970; this is probably too much for either the
University or its Library to hope for.
If it can be assumed that the University and the
Library will be expected to do more with less, ways
must be found either to limit demands or to increase
benefits while lowering costs. In the past year, the
University took steps to control at least one aspect of
its future: it set a limitation on enrolment of 27,500
students during its two major terms. In setting this
figure, it established a higher than present ratio of
graduate students to undergraduate students, 5,500
to 22,000. By defining its ultimate student body, the
University greatly simplified the task of planning its
Accommodating student users has been one of the
most difficult of the Library's problems in the past
decade, and it is a problem that is not yet solved.
However, the enrolment limitation facilitates Library
planning in this its most expensive aspect, for library
patrons are the greatest consumers of space in library
buildings. Using the accepted standard of 35 per cent
seating for undergraduate students and 50 per cent
seating for graduate students, a requirement of
10,450 places is indicated when the enrolment limit is
Presently, in all libraries, reading rooms and study
areas, there are almost 5,000 seats. A new Sedgewick
Library is under construction; a new Law Library is
in the planning stages; these, together with the
libraries for the sciences, fine arts and education,
already proposed to the Senate Committee on
Academic Building Needs; together with increased
seating in the Main Library following upon the
removal of the Processing Divisions; and together
with a few anticipated reading rooms, will come
acceptably close to the University's hopefully
permanent requirement for seating.
By comparison, planning is complicated by the
continuous increase in recorded knowledge. No end
to this process is in sight. The demand for access to
the Library's store is similarly increasing, with no hint
of diminishing. Thus it is extremely difficult to
discern the ultimate nature and dimensions of the
Library's collections, and to determine how these
may be arranged and controlled. However, some
4/UBC Reports/March 11, 1971
trends can be examined as possible indicators.
During the 1960s, it was frequently speculated
that the physical volume, the book, was destined to
disappear. At the beginning of a new decade, this
seems far from likely. It is now commonly recognized
that the centuries-old format has many advantages in
convenience of use, portability and economy. Book
production rates are escalating the world over, and
confidence in the future of the book is evidenced by
the enthusiasm of investors, from conglomerates
down to individuals, for the stock of publishers; it has
recently come to public attention that foreign capital
regards even Canadian publishing as a reasonable
The appetite of consumers for books and
magazines is not waning, despite early warnings that
television would compete for public time. At the
University, faculty members provide longer and
longer lists of readings for their students, who have
established new rates of use which, if they continue
to rise, will attain 6,000,000 loans per year by 1980.
It would be reasonable for the Library to assume that
the conventional printed volume will play a major
role in its future, as it has in its past.
On that assumption, the Library will hold
2,500,000 volumes by 1980, even if its purchasing
power is not increased over 1969/70. If the collection
grows at the rate established in the past decade, it will
contain 3,000,000 volumes, and yet this figure would
represent a proportionately smaller share of the
world's information resources. In fact, a
3,000,000-volume collection is not remarkable in
1970, and will be much less remarkable in 1980.
Among North American university libraries, nine
have collections of over 3,000,000 volumes, including
the University of Toronto; 11 more have collections
of over 2,000,000 volumes; and 38 have collections
of over a million. In the Association of Research
Libraries list of 58 libraries, UBC's Library stands
fiftieth. It is highly probable that the Library will
grow past the 2,500,000 mark and approach the
3,000,000 mark in the next decade.
While the physical book rests secure in its future,
it is also unquestioned that it will be joined by a
variety of other media or knowledge-carrying formats
in the Library, or in close association with it. Some of
these formats, such as sound recordings, microforms
and computer tapes, are already familiar, some are
unfamiliar, and doubtless there are others yet
undiscovered and unknown. Again, some trends may
be detected: developments in microphotography,
sound recording and computers share a trend toward
miniaturization, with its corollary of portability; and
with this new compactness costs are declining. Both
the machines necessary for using recorded materials
and the recorded materials themselves are becoming
smaller and less expensive to reproduce.
The eventual integration of the technologies of
electronics and photography could result in cassettes
carrying libraries of fundamental readings, playable
on devices as convenient and cheap as a transistor
radio. The linking of libraries to computers with the
capability of swiftly accessing massive memory banks
will further revolutionize the use of information. It
would be a mistake, however, to assume that the
Library itself will play a major role in developing the
necessary new products to support these systems, or,
as some people have thought, in hindering their
As with the Library, the final test will be at the
level of the user, and in an attempt to satisfy him,
manufacturers will invest, and are now investing, vast
amounts of capital. The Library's role, as in the past,
will be to remain alert to the possibilities of all new
means of storing and using information, and to
incorporate them into the existing collections.
Despite the vagueness of the future, planning for
the  collections must proceed. The accommodation
required for physical volumes can be easily estimated;,
space for a collection of 2,500,000 volumes has been *
requested in the submission to the Senate Committee
on Academic Building Needs . . . The implications of
future developments in information handling point
toward buildings of great flexibility, capable of
constant readaption of space, and equipped for the
installation of a variety of equipment. *
If the University is to accommodate library users »
and collections in the 1970s, it must commit itself to
a   continuous   program   of  library  construction.   It
should    be    noted,    however,    that    the    proposed
buildings, while they will provide for the projected
numbers of users, will not hold physical volumes in-
excess   of   2,500,000;   any   increase   in   purchasing
power above the present  level  will thus mean that
additional   space for collections must be provided.
This raises the question of the eventual size of the
collection,  and where it might be housed when  it.
reaches three million volumes, then four, then five.
There is a growing realization that libraries can no
longer follow a course of exclusively independent
development. The creation of centres of bibliographic
information linked with efficient means of
transmission can maximize the use of regional and^-**
national   resources   and   provide   opportunities   for Picture by UBC Photo Depcirtment
multi-institutional acquisitions policies, with
attendant financial economies. The librarians of
British Columbia's three public universities are now
exploring ways and means of achieving these
objectives, by means of which some of the outcomes
of unhindered and unregulated collection growth can
be avoided.
From the point of view of the user, what has been
called the information explosion is imposing heavier
burdens in terms of the use of personal time.
Responses to this situation can be seen in many
quarters. Witness the development and growing
popularity of speed-reading courses; the increasing
sales of outlines and digests of individual books and
whole subject areas; learning aids, ranging from flash
cards and recordings through to teaching machines;
and at the extreme, experiments in learning even
during sleep.
The Library must respond by going farther in
helping the user to locate as swiftly as possible only
the material which is relevant to his purposes; the
whole Library apparatus, from subject catalogues to
. physical arrangements, must be made more efficient
and   more  comprehensible.   At  the same time, the
Statistics Reflect
Library's Growth
The impressive growth of UBC's Library in the
past decade is reflected in the numerous statistics
cited by Librarian Basil Stuart-Stubbs In his
1969-70 annual report to the UBC Senate.
Here are some of the more interesting ones
from thfe report.
"In 10 years, loans increased by 320.9 per cent,
from 443,888 items in 1960-61 to 1,868,466
items last year. This is no mere reflection of an
increase in student numbers: enrolment has grown
by 78.7 per cent. The explanation for the
discrepancy lies in the fact that students now use
the library more intensively, borrowing an average
of 89.7 items per year, compared with 38.2 items
a decade ago."
"University operating expenditures stood at
$16,225,972 in 1960-61 and $51,397,650 in
1969-70, a 216.7 per cent increase: Library
operating expenditures, by comparison, increased
by 470.9 per cent, from $677,369 to $3,873,988,
and from 4.2 per cent of the total University
budget to 7.6 per cent.
"In a list of budgets of North American
research libraries, UBC stood in 32nd place at the
beginning of the decade; at the end it ranked 19th.
"Expressed in terms of student support,
whereas the University spent $53.28 per student
on over 11,000 students for library service 10
years ago, it spends $186.49 on over 20,000
students today.
"Yet surprisingly, this last figure is one of the
lowest in Canada. Simon Fraser University spends
$426.54; the University of Victoria
$311.73; .. .The University of Toronto
$216.60;.. .McGill University $222.48;. .. .In
fact, only Sir George Williams University, the
University of Saskatchewan and the University of
Manitoba spent less than UBC in 1969-70."
"Specialization and decentralization of library
collections and services, under a centralized
administration, was the story of the 60s. Within
the Main Library, over a period of a decade, new
divisions for maps, government publications,
microforms, recordings, collection development,
orientation and systems were set up.
"Around the campus branch libraries were
organized for mathematics, ecology, social work,
forestry and agriculture. In 1963 the Law Library
and. the Biomedical Library became part of the
developing network, and in 1969 this system was
extended to include over 30 departmental reading
rooms, operated jointly with the departments
concerned through a Reading Rooms Division."
"Ten years ago, during the winter and spring
terms, libraries were open for 79 hours per week.
In 1969-70 this has been increased to 100 hours a
week for major branches; all branches combined
offered services for a total of 947 hours in a single
"It has been pointed out that in a decade loans
have increased by about 321 percent. Interlibrary
loans have increased by 866 per cent.. . .Whereas
in 1960-61, UBC's Library filled about three
requests for every one it made, it now fills five. Of
the over 20,000 requests filled in 1969-70, over
12,000 were received from four provincial
institutions: Simon Fraser University, the
University of Victoria, the B.C. Institute of
Technology and the B.C. Medical Service Library."
"In 1969-70 the library was spending almost
$1,000,000 more on books and magazines than it
was in 1959-60; over 10 years the budget for the
purchase of library materials has increased by
390.3 per cent, not taking into account the
depreciation of the dollar in respect to rising costs
of books and journal subscriptions, estimated at six
to seven per cent per year ....
"In a decade, a total investment of $7,938,390
was made on library materials; the size of the
collection, measured in physical volumes alone,
increased by nearly 150 per cent."
"The 103 staff members of 1960 had become
394 by 1970; of that number only 18 could be
counted as veterans, having joined the staff before
the beginning of the decade. There has been a
three-fold increase in the number of professional
librarians, from 33 to 100, and over a four-fold
increase in supporting staff, from 70 to 294. After
Toronto, McGill and Alberta, UBC's library staff is
the fourth largest in Canada today.
"The improvements in service described . . .in
this report were reflected in the ratio between
students and library staff: 113 to 1 in 1960, 53 to
1 ten years later."
Library will have a larger role to play in equipping
students to deal with information, for the ability to
keep abreast of developments in one's specialty will
become critical to one's survival in this age of
technology. No less important, if the age of
technology is to be humane, will be the Library's
function of providing access to and encouraging
familiarity with the world's cultural inheritance, in
such forms as literature, art and music.
While it is not possible to foresee all of the changes
which will take place in the Library in the 1970s,
enough can be predicted that it becomes possible to
sketch a rough portrait. Certainly the Library will be
larger in terms of its own collections, but these may
have reached a practical limit in terms of size and
format, with older and infrequently used materials
being relegated to various kinds of storage.
The Library, despite the limitations of its own
immediate resources, will have access to vast
repositories of material through co-operative regional
bibliographic centres, joined to national and
international systems of information gathering,
indexing, and preservation. Great distances may be
involved, but the time required to locate and transmit
desired materials will be diminished.
The requirements of users will be heavier, more
pressing and more refined, and these will be met by
higher levels of reference and public service, involving
greater numbers of specialized library staff members,
with access to more sophisticated systems of
information retrieval. Users will have the benefit of a
variety of media, from books to videotape, greatly
enriching the quality of education.
Some have questioned the ability of the
conventional library to survive. In nature, the failure
to adapt leads to extinction. UBC's Library will have
no such fate, given the willing support of the
University, because it is today a flexible and
responsive organization, staffed by inventive and
industrious people, for whom the future presents a
stimulating challenge.
But in meeting this challenge, the Library must
have the support of Senate and of the University,
particularly in respect to its physical requirements;
for if these requirements are not met, the Library is
destined to become an inefficient and unmanageable
barrier to education. The University will be the loser,
and will have thrown away the investment of 55 years
of effort and expense.
UBC Reports/March 11, 1971/5 In the interests of fair play, UBC Reports
herewith prints the entire text of the speech
entitled "Law and Order: What Does It Mean?",
which was to have been given at a meeting of the
Vancouver Institute March 6 by John Turner,
Canada's Minister of Justice and Attorney
We live in an age in which violence has almost become
respectable. We see it every night on television. Through
the electronic wizardry of modern communications we
become participants — not mere observers — in turmoil
around the globe. We go into battle with American
troops in Vietnam. We are part of armed confrontations
in Belfast and Londonderry. Protest and turbulence
everywhere overwhelm our senses.
In self-protection we erect a defence mechanism — a
psychological numbness to shock — that dulls our
sensitivity to violence. We blur clear issues in order to be
able to cope with these distasteful aspects of modern
It is our defence mechanism which provokes our
habit of using words very loosely to disguise meaning, to
invest words with our own definition. This gloss of
private, subjective definition deprives much of our
vocabulary of universal meaning.
Some words have meaning only to ourselves. Words
mean less and less. We talk to ourselves because the lack
of objectivity in our speech makes it more and more
difficult to talk to others.
The simple phrase, "Law and Order," has suffered
more than most from lack of precise definition. And yet,
we use the words time after time without recognizing
that each of us attaches a meaning that most closely
suits our own personal purposes and the requirements of
our individual psyches. In a way, the more we respond in
personal terms to the threat of violence in our world, the
more we color those words "Law and Order."
How much "order" under law do we need and how do
we decide? Certainly we should seek guidance from our
past. By any standard, Canada has not been a violent
country. We have known no civil war. We have not
suffered racial confrontation. We have been spared, until
recently, political assassination.
Not that we have not had turmoil. The dramatic and
bitter struggle that surrounded the Winnipeg general
strike led to a riot on June 21, 1919; order was restored
only after the intervention of the military, and strike
leaders were subsequently convicted of seditious
conspiracy and were sentenced to prison terms ranging
up to two years.
• In November, 1944, the government ordered 16,000
conscripts into the European theatre of the Second
World War. The action led to riots and general social
unrest in Quebec, and only the end of hostilities
prevented the issue from escalating.
When we hear of the terrorism of the militant black
organizations in the United States, or the confrontation
politics of the New Left, we should not forget the
Doukhobor burnings perpetrated by the Sons of
Freedom. When we read of the tragedies at Kent and
Jackson State Universities, we should recall our own
campus violence at Sir George Williams.
But it was the events of October and November that
brought the phenomenon of contemporary violence
home to us. Some said we came of age. Were these
isolated events? Do they signal a new norm? We must
anticipate at least the possibility that we will continue to
face for some time the threat to society that the use of
violence entails.
If this be so, we must anticipate it. No longer can we
simply wait for a situation to develop and then take
action in a time of crisis. Today, the growth rate of
problems is exponential and the reaction time available
too short. We must work ahead of our problems or be
overtaken by them. The law must never lag behind the
changing system of values that make us what we are. To
allow this to happen would be an abdication of any
government's mandate for leadership.
THE ROOTS OF VIOLENCE. How do we explain
this new contemporary threat? To understand any
complex concept, we must look deeper than the
superficial trappings. We should not mistake the
symptoms for the disease. To analyse violence and our
reaction to violence, we must be aware of the deep
causative factors.
We   are   becoming  a   society   that enjoys  material
6/UBC Reports/March 11, 1971
affluence unknown in history. Yet as individuals, we
find little job satisfaction, intellectual gratification or
feeling of personal worth. And the gaps between rich
and poor grow wider.
We live in a world where events are accelerating to
such an extent that co-ordinates of time, space and
consciousness are sacrificed in favor of statistics, punch
cards and computer programs. Alvin Toffler has coined
the phrase "future shock" to describe the shattering
stress and disorientation that is induced in individuals
when they are subjected to too much change in too
short a time. The important variable is the rate of
change, a parameter that may bring about more
far-reaching implications than the more visible and
tangible measures that are the results of change. We have
become victims of "future shock," a disease brought on
by the premature arrival of the future.
We are bombarded by words and images and sounds.
Distance or isolation no longer protects us. We are
everywhere in the world and we must cope not only
with our own problems, but with everyone's problems.
We are dwarfed by bigness and remoteness in
government. We sense that we can no longer control or
direct our own affairs. We search for a meaningful part
to play.
Is it affluence or poverty? Is it future shock? Is it the
immediacy and universality of communication? Is it a
sense of alienation and frustration?
The causes of violence run deep. We must seek to
understand before we act to correct. We must diagnose
the illness before we prescribe the cure.
SOCIAL ORDER. The institutions of authority,
including those of law, are undergoing searching inquiry
and criticism. We struggle to resolve conflicts between
young and old, between competing lifestyles, between
structured education and free thought, between labor
and management. The family, long a bastion of stability,
is under unprecedented stress. Some no longer look
upon it as the basic unit of society. Marriage is becoming
only a transitory state for many couples. Our
institutions, as presently structured, have been
conditioned by other times. Some have not kept pace
with the society they serve. There is hunger for renewal
and reform.
Reform we must have. But some would go further —
and destroy. We heeir the distraught voices of those who
would tear down all that we have built. Some would
corrupt the legitimate urge for reform by the call for
anarchy. It is all too easy for demands for dialogue to
give way to disruption, and for participation to yield to
provocation. Slogans replace solutions. Dissent becomes
I am disturbed by those who stretch the right of
dissent to bring within its orb confrontation politics. It
is now a classic technique of revolution to advocate the
use of violence, to attempt to bring about situations of
confrontation where authority and governments are
forced to take inflexible positions. This intransigence is
then used by revolutionaries as further evidence of the
need to use violence to bring about the destruction of
the social structure.
Yet a society, to protect itself, must react. The
danger is, of course, that in meeting a threat, authority
may resort to measures of "overkill" — measures that
result in a paralysis of middle-of-the-road, moderate
opinion and a polarized population. If every
confrontation is met with force, and force with greater
force, government fuels a chain reaction that, once
started, is beyond control.
a society respond to an anticipated threat of violence?
First, on the plane of philosophy. Priority must be given
to debase any theory that advocates violence as a viable
vehicle of social reform. To achieve this, we must do
something more than express our disgust and our sense
of outrage. An emotional rejection will not suffice. We
must meet head-on the arguments put forward to
support violence and we must be prepared to neutralize
these arguments with the slow, calm and ordered logic
that is the anathema of revolutionary emotionalism,
false rhetoric and propaganda.
Let us honestly admit, first of all, the historical fact
that violence has at times resulted in some ultimate
benefit to society in times where other remedies were
non-existent   or   ineffective.   Against   that,   we   must
present the historical counterbalance that, in recent
times, the overwhelming majority of the reforms that
have advanced civilization and the public welfare has
been brought about by peaceful means in times of
institutional stability and through the exercise of
conventional, and for the most part, democratic means.
And so, violence has no patent on social reform;
peaceful alternatives have been and continue to be more
A second argument that is put forward by those who
advocate violence is that it is the right and, indeed, the
duty of every free individual to overthrow an oppressive
government. In the American context, this argument
might be labelled the "Boston Tea Party Syndrome."
Let us not dismiss the argument out of hand, but
recognize that its validity is restricted to those narrow
situations where the normal legal remedies are
Under our present democratic system of government
in Canada, avenues of recourse and reform are wide and
unencumbered and there is no excuse for violence. If we
continue to redress the imbalance in the relationship
between the individual and the state, violence is
unnecessary, inefficient and unjustifiable.
A third argument for violence that must be
discredited is that the state itself uses force and thereby
legitimates its use by others. "The government uses force
and thus so can I; the policeman carries a weapon and so
shall I!" This thesis fails to distinguish between the use
of force by authority and the use of raw power and
violence by dissidents seeking change.
My own personal conviction is that force should be
avoided by everyone if at all possible, regardless of
whether or not one carries the mandate of society. But it
is intellectually dishonest to equate the use of force by
authority with the use of power by self-styled
revolutionaries. The use of force by authority finds its
sanction in the complex fabric of human association,
and in the collective ethic of civilized man and the
instinct for social survival.
In my rebuttals, I hope that you will not find me
guilty of employing the psychological defence
mechanism that I mentioned earlier. It is admittedly a
very subjective game to attempt to convey universal
meaning by such words as "repression" and
"legitimate." But if we are to communicate at all, thej^^
must be some understanding between us. Perhaps tl^^p
understanding will never come by way of agreed
definitions — perhaps we will have to rely more and
more on a higher sense of perception — a higher order of
communication — when words fail us. In the end, we
may have to trust what is felt in the stomach, what we
see in each other's eyes, and what we perceive as the
innermost force of will that a person wishes to express.
But there can be no doubt: listening can no longer be a
passive activity.
philosophically rejected violence as a means to bring
about social reform, we must direct our thoughts to
control mechanisms that will restrain violence. Any
reasoned response must contemplate the criminal law
and the use of the criminal sanction.
Whatever the phrase "Law and Order" does mean, it
should not become the rallying cry of bigots, nor the
facade of those who would impose measures that
interfere unjustly with personal freedom. What, then, is
a reasoned response?
Prof. Herbert Packer of the School of Law at
Stanford University has postulated two models for the
criminal process: the Crime Control Model and the Due
Process Model.
The basic value assumption of Packer's Crime Control
Model of the criminal process is that it is the job of the
police to find people who contravene the substantive
provisions of the criminal law, that the police are an
expert, professional body performing this task and their
good sense should be trusted when they evaluate the
methods and the social costs that are required. The
accent is on speed, efficiency and finality.
The second of Packer's two models, the Due Process
Model, uses as its central theme the primacy of
individual freedom and the limitation of official power.
Packer postulates that the two models provide two
poles of opinion and that, in reality, any particular
application of the criminal sanction will fall somewhere
between the two poles. Indeed, Packer points out that AT NEVER WAS
"a person who subscribed to all of the values underlying
one   model   to   the   exclusion   of   all   of   the   values
underlying   the   other   would   be  rightly  viewed   as  a
;    fanatic."
As between the individual protected by due process
and the society protected by crime control, I lean
instinctively to the former — and so indeed do most of
us. The balance between liberty on the one hanc and the
security of the state or maintenance of public order on
the other requires the most difficult human judgments
that men and women are called upon to make. I have
' publicly stated that it is my belief that the personal
'- freedom of the individual should be interfered with by
the state only where such interference can be proven by
the state to be necessary to protect the larger interests of
society as a collective whole.
I believe that it is not sufficient to establish a position
somewhere between the two poles postulated by Packer
• and stubbornly to refuse to modify that position. As our
John Turner makes a vain attempt to begin his speech at
Saturday's Vancouver Institute meeting. Photo by David
Margerison, UBC Photo Department.
world becomes more complex — as change becomes the
only thing that retains the attributes of permanence —
we must discard any absolutist theory. We must be
prepared to shift, to modify and react to meet new
situations as they arise and to do so in a knowing,
calculated way and not in haste, in panic or by way of
preconditioned reaction.
Any modern concept of the criminal process must be
one that is flexible — a conceptualized system that has
the capacity to grow, to learn and be conditioned by the
past, yet pliable enough to meet and solve the problems
of the future.
I was interested to read the criticism of Packer's
analysis of the criminal process by Prof. John Griffiths
of the Yale Law School, published in the January
edition of the Yale Law Journal. Prof. Griffiths points
out that both of Packer's models can be visualized as a
single concept — one that sees the criminal process as a
"battleground" between those who control and direct
the criminal process (the legislators, the police and the
judicial process) and those that are brought within its
web — the criminal suspect, the protestor, the fraud
artist or the terrorist.
Griffiths criticizes the Packer models on the basis that
both rest upon the unarticulated premise that the
criminal process is nothing more than an adversary
system, a process that emphasizes polarization. He gives
as a third alternative a Family Model of the criminal
Griffiths states that society has been conditioned to
think  of  law  purely  as a social control device which
- divides the righteous from the criminal, that pits the
police against the criminal element in society, and finds
the prosecutor in a verbal duel with Perry Mason.
He would reject this concept in favor of one that
recognizes that law or the Rule of Law plays a necessary
part in the totality of our social organization, not just a
rearguard action to control crime. Just as we punish a
child for an act that disrupts family order, traditions, or
safety, so the criminal process acts to order our larger
existence as a society. And yet we view the reprimanded
child in a light different from the convicted criminal.
The child is retained in the family and continues to
learn, mature and be free; the criminal is banished to an
institution where he is cut off from society, robbed of
all responsibility and given little chance to learn so that
he may once again be integrated into the society he has
I arn convinced that we must work toward a more
comprehensive understanding of the criminal process
and how it interacts with society as a whole. Our
understanding of the real nature of the criminal sanction
will be crucial to our response to violence.
October and November of 1970, Canada faced a serious
and unprecedented problem. The terrorism of the FLQ
demonstrated an arrogance and a degree of inhumanity
that our ordinary democratic processes could not
tolerate. Intimidation of governments and of the public
by means of kidnapping and murder were their modus
operandi. The government of the Province of Quebec
and the authorities of the City of Montreal asked the
federal government to permit the use of exceptional
The threshold of violence had been crossed and there
was a challenge to the existing social order. A response
was clearly indicated. It was a time for decision.
On October 16, the War Measures Act was
proclaimed. It was my duty to support that
proclamation and later to introduce the Public Order
(Temporary Measures) Act that replaced the regulations
made pursuant to the War Measures Act.
Those who criticized the actions of the government
felt that the response exceeded the threat. They felt that
events in Quebec did not justify the action the
government took.
What the critics missed, in my opinion, was the
extent of the threat and the nature of the response.
First, let's deal with the threat. The threat was not
only in the form of kidnappings and murder, and
governments held to ransom. The threat was a far wider
scenario including an erosion of public will, escalating
calls to violence, and the tenseness of a city beleaguered.
I am convinced that to have let matters run for more
hours or days might have been disastrous. One should
never forget that the Government of Quebec and the
City of Montreal called upon the federal authorities to
meet an "apprehended insurrection."
It's easy now to say that there was never a threat
because nothing happened. That's the type of argument,
based on hypothesis, which is difficult to rebut because
it forces us to say that nothing happened because we
acted. A negative is always difficult to prove.
Second, the response The response was measured,
specific and precise. True, the War Measures Act was a
blunt instrument, as we admitted. But what the critics
chose to ignore was that only the regulations passed
under the War Measures Act had the force of law. The
full force of the act itself, with all its potential power,
was never brought into play. Only the regulations had
the force of law. The regulations and the subsequent
Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act were
specifically drawn to meet the FLQ threat in Quebec —
and only that threat.
The regulations and the later act gave certain
extended powers to the law enforcement authorities.
These additional powers — a wider power of arrest
without warrant, the suspension of bail, a power to
detain without charge for a limited short period of time
— all were directed solely against the FLQ or allied
organizations having as their object the use of force as a
means of accomplishing governmental change within
Canada with respect to the Province of Quebec or its
relationship to Canada. The regulations were revoked
when the Public Order Act was passed and that act will
automatically terminate on April 30. Our response was
pinpointed to the threat and was a temporary
amendment to our laws. In all other respects, the
ordinary criminal law of the land, including the right to
counsel and the presumption of innocence and all the
other  protections  for  the individual  applied and still
I suppose that unconsciously I weighed Herbert
Packer's models in my mind — "crime control" on the
one hand and "due process" on the other. I weighed the
rights of the community against the rights of the
individual. And so I am sure, did every other member of
the government. The decision to act and to act as we did
was a human value judgment. It was a judgment that
involved an assessment of all the available facts viewed
against the total background of events in Quebec, events
that formed a continuum of change in the social fabric
of that Province.
We refused and still refuse to admit the possibility
that democracy alone, of all forms of government, is
prohibited by its own principles from ensuring its own
preservation. We did not view our action simply as a
method of crime control, for we recognized the risks
involved in any possible overkill that might in turn
provoke counter-reaction, polarize Canada into two
bands of opinion and erode the moderate opinion of the
country. We de-escalated the response as soon as we
could by revoking the War Measures Act, when
Parliament passed the Temporary Measures Act. And the
latter act itself will lapse automatically on April 30, or
sooner, if the underlying facts warrant that action.
May I say in parenthesis that what we did in October
and November, we did with determination, but with
great reluctance. Here is what I said in the House of
Commons on November 4, 1970:
"We did what we did because it had to be done. Some
of the measures we have had to adopt in the short run
and for a short term are philosophically abhorrent to us.
We intend as soon as we can to turn once more to the
road of law reform and the continuing enhancement and
protection of civil liberties."
I have fulfilled that undertaking. We have turned
again to law reform. The Bail Reform Bill is now before
Parliament. I intend soon to introduce legislation
prohibiting unauthorized wire-tapping. I hope to present
a further package of criminal law reform that will
continue to bring the law closer to contemporary
attitudes and to improve the machinery of protection
for the innocent, first offenders, and for those whose
only crime is being poor in public.
When we look back on October, the FLQ crisis and
the government's action will be recorded as a turning
point in Canadian history. History indeed will judge
whether we were right or wrong. But the crisis will be
measured and analysed, not in terms of the number of
people arrested or convicted, or the number of weapons
seized, but in what it meant to Quebec and to Canada as
a nation. What has it meant to our maturity and our
collective ability as a family of citizens? What has it
done to our resolve to reject the violence of those who
would divide us?
During the next few months, this country will have to
debate how it should respond in the future to threats of
organized violence. Are additional powers needed in this
country to anticipate and prevent this type of violence
when it becomes incipient or imminent? When it
threatens or intimidates governments, what techniques
should be used? What should governments do to reverse
the immobility of public opinion and to regain "control
of the action?" Should additional powers for controlling
our streets be sought? Should additional powers of arrest
and detention be available to be brought into play to
meet future emergencies? How do we ensure that in the
future our response is flexible enough to meet the
threat, but not to exceed the threat so as to amount to
This will demand a deeper understanding of the limits
of the criminal sanction — how it should be used in a
modern society to protect that society from the threat
of violence without at the same time destroying freedom
or dissent.
CONCLUSION. How we use the criminal process and
the criminal sanction may well determine the quality of
the life that we lead and the limits of the freedoms we
enjoy as individuals.
We must come to see the danger in using the criminal
sanction to prosecute for what people are rather than for
what people do. We must see to it that the criminal law
is not abused to enforce what is thought to be a
community moral standard. We must use the criminal
process only if we do so in the full knowledge of what
the results will be in terms of costs and benefits to both
individuals and to society. We must carefully weigh
each application of the criminal sanction ever mindful of
Lincoln's words:
"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its
UBC Reports/March 11, 1971/7 CONTINUED  FROM   PAGE   ONE
Attempts to Start Meeting Futile
Order: What Does It Mean?" - that precipitated the
In his speech Turner had planned to warn of the
difficulty of using just such emotionally charged
phrases as "law and order."
"Each of us attaches a meaning (to these words)
that most closely suits our own personal purposes and
the requirements of our individual psyches," he had
written. "The more we respond in personal terms to
the threat of violence in our world, the more we color
those words 'Law and Order.' "
The disruption of the Turner lecture was made
easier for the protestors by the no-longer-silent
majority at the meeting. By trying to shout down the
demonstrators, Turner's supporters added to the din
and prolonged — and perhaps exacerbated — the
The split among the audience was not, as might
have been expected, entirely on generational or class
lines. Many of Turner's most vociferous champions
were younger than some of the demonstrators. And
although the Vancouver Institute audience is
generally a middle-class one, the anti-Turner people
also sprang from the same background.
The confrontation was simply a political one, a
perfect example of the kind of polarization that
Turner's speech warned against.
"I am disturbed by those who stretch the right of
dissent to bring within its orb confrontation politics,"
Turner had planned to say.
"It is now a classic technique of revolution to
advocate the use of violence, to attempt to bring
about situations of confrontation where authority
and governments are forced to take inflexible
positions.. . .The danger is, of course, that in
meeting a threat, authorities may resort to measures
of 'overkill' — measures that result in a paralysis of
middle-of-the-road, moderate opinion and a polarized
"If every confrontation is met with force, and
force with greater force, government fuels a chain
reaction that, once started, is beyond control."
Every seat in Buchanan 106, which holds 275
persons, was filled at 8 p.m. on Saturday. At 8:15,
when Turner entered the room escorted by Institute
president Patrick Thorsteinsson, they had to pick
their way through people sitting in the aisles.
Before the meeting started, one of the
demonstrators marched to the blackboard at the
front of the room and chalked up the slogan "Free
Vallieres and Gagnon." A second demonstrator
generated one of the few moments of light-hearted
laughter during the evening by adding a grave accent
to the first "e" in Vallieres' name.
For 40 minutes Thorsteinsson, a Vancouver
lawyer, and Turner himself attempted to persuade the
radicals to cease their chanting and heckling so the
meeting could begin.
The response from the radicals was a renewal of
the chanting and slogan-shouting, which led to
rebuttal from Turner's supporters and contributed to
the general uproar.
"We've got about an hour-and-a-half to put in
here. It depends how you want to do it,"
Thorsteinsson told the demonstrators in making one
of his vain attempts to get the meeting underway.
"We've got nothing else to do," one demonstrator
countered. "We've got no jobs to go to," a second
Turner   supporters countered  with:   "Go  home.
then," and "Why don't you find a job, then?"
The demonstrators then returned to chanting
slogans such as "Free Quebec" and "No free speech
for Quebecois, No free speech for Turner."
The uproar was further increased when a small
group of demonstrators pushed their way part way
down one of the room's aisles. In the midst of the
group was a person clad in a gorilla costume who
pranced up and down, waving his arms at the crowd.
After Thorsteinsson made two futile attempts to
introduce Turner, Dr. Gordon Shrum, chairman of
B.C. Hydro and former dean of Graduate Studies at
UBC, suggested over the hubbub that the
demonstrators should have "five minutes on the
microphone," and then allow the meeting to start.
His suggestion drew shouts of derision from the
Turner himself then attempted to address the
meeting. "A few people here are using slogans instead
of logic," Turner shouted.
A demonstrator countered with "Vive Quebec
"Am I going to get a hearing here?" Turner said.
"No," roared the dissidents. They shouted a
similar reply when Turner asked: "Are we living in a
free society?"
Throughout Turner's attempts to get the meeting
started his supporters continued to remonstrate
loudly with the demonstrators.
At one point a brief fist fight broke out near the
front of the room where the bulk of the
demonstrators were concentrated.
It happened during a shouted exchange between
Turner and Mordecai Briemberg, a suspended member
of the faculty of the Political Science, Sociology and
Anthropology Department at Simon Fraser.
An angry young man forced his way into the
group of demonstrators around Briemberg and struck
him on the side of the head.
When the scuffle subsided. Turner made additional
fruitless efforts to begin his speech. Finally, at 8:55
p.m., when the demonstrators broke into the song
"When the Saints Go Marching In," the minister
broke off his attempts to start his address and many
of the audience rose and left the room.
As a final gesture, a demonstrator at the back of.
the   room   rose   and   hurled  a  tomato   in  Turner's"
direction.    It   struck   a   UBC   graduate.   Miss  Alex
Volkoff, who was at the meeting to report Turner's
speech for the Vancouver Sun.
Turner remained at the lecture table for an
additional 35 minutes, talking to radio and newspaper
reporters and a handful of radicals. The bulk of the
dissenters huddled in small groups among the desks
throughout the lecture hall and did not leave until
Turner departed at 9:30 p.m.
Topics discussed by Turner and members of the
audience after the meeting broke up included the War
Measures Act, the bail reform bill now before the
federal Parliament, division of powers between the
federal, provincial and municipal governments, legal
aid and marijuana.
Asked if he would legislate against incidents such
as the one he had just been through. Turner replied:
"I wouldn't want to legislate against something like
this: This is one of the necessary risks of free
Turner told newsmen he was disappointed that he
had not been allowed to speak. He said he had spoken
at several eastern universities in the wake of campus
incidents, "but this is the first time I've not only been
unable to finish a speech but to even begin it."
■■■fc4fc Volume 17, No. 6-March 11,
llll|^ 1971<     Published    by    the
IIUIl University of British Columbia
^armaw^ar ancj    distributed     free.     UBC
Reports appears on Thursdays
during the University's winter session. J.A.
Banham, Editor. Linda Adams, Production
Supervisor. Letters to the Editor should be sent
to Information Services, Main Mall North
Administration Building, UBC, Vancouver 8,
8/UBC Reports/March 11, 1971


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