The McGill Tribune Published by the Students’ Society of McGill University
Vol 2, No. 2 Tuesday, September 14, 1982
A Principal Welcome by Patrick H.F. Baillie Along with the history o f McGill University stands an air o f mystery abou t its administrators. W ho a re the G overnors? W hat d o the Vice-Principals do? Throughout the cou rse o f this year, The Tribune will b e presenting interviews with many o f the p eo p le w ho m a k e the decisions regarding McGill, its educational rapport an d your welfare. It m ay seem rather traditional an d uninspired to begin the y ea r with a m essag e from the Principal, but, then, McGill is an institution ste ep ed in tradi tion an d the m essage is fa r from uninspired. As o n e o f the m ost obvious and available o f McGill’s adm inistrators, D avid Lloyd Jo h n sto n is also on e o f the m ost enthusiastic. His young age and lack o f cynicism should not b e con fu sed with any a b se n c e o f experien ce. As student o r faculty, he has spent time at no less than six universities including the University o f Toronto, C am bridge an d H arvard, finally com ing from the position as D ean o f L aw at the University o f W estern O nta rio to b e co m e McGill’s Principal and ViceC hancellor at a g e 37. N ow his life is d ev o ted to McGill, both in term s o f su ch functions a s fun d raising fo r the Alumni Fund and debating the various levels o f governm ents and in terms o f being directly involved in the day-to-day o p e r a tions o f w hat could b e con sidered a m ajor co rp o ration. T he McGill spirit p erv ad es all o f his w ork an d continues into his office w here The Tribune recently h a d an opportunity to interview him abou t why h e an d others have co m e to McGill, w hat is to b e fou n d h ere an d w hat should b e left behind when, fo r the thousands w ho graduate e a c h year, the McGill experien ce draw s to a close. Tribune: R ather than describing why a student might want to co m e to McGill, p erh ap s you could explain what it was that brought you here? Principal: It is a complex answer, but reason #1 would be that I have spent a great part of my adult life involved with universities, I believe very much in the mission of the university in our society and when invited to come to what I consider to be a truly great university, it was an enormous chal lenge and one which I couldn’t turn down. Tribune: T he k ey w ord is the description o f McGill a s a "great University’’; w hat m ak es it great? Principal: The people who put it together: the students, the Faculty and the non-academic staff. For the students, I am impressed by the aca demic calibre, the diversity (from different parts of
the country and beyond our borders), the unusual degree of motivation and the impressive record of their accomplishments. All that seems to go together into a chemistry that leads them to do interesting things and, I believe, have a pretty exciting time when they’re through. The quality of people whom we are able to attract and keep as professorial staff is the second reason. Based on my experience in other good universities, I am able to say that we have an unusually committed and dedicated group of faculty and non-academic staff. The non-academic staff are pretty demanding of themselves and that, too, contributes to mak ing this a great University. Another factor is that McGill is deeply cher ished by its alumni who have shown their dedica tion not only financially, but also with their leader ship and advice to the University. Finally, the cauldron, the crucible of Montreal
within the, at least, bicultural Quebec provides a degree of excitement and challenge that makes for a good learning environment. Tribune: F o r the student w ho follow s you to McGill, w hat will the three or fou r years have to offer them ? Principal: In their particular discipline, we would expect that they should be stretched intellectu ally, that their experience should be one where they are reaching beyond themselves and that that should be an exposure which serves them for a lifetime of learning. We like to think that McGill has been here long enough and in the business of University education that we will not attempt to take short cuts or provide a very narrow training. We would like to see the establishment of an intellectual curiosity, an intellectual foundation, so that this university experience is just one step in a lifelong period of knowledge acquisition. Aside from intellectual development, I think
that the three or four years will also provide the student with a chance to meet a diverse crosssection of people and to share in the richness of community. I hope that we provide an environ ment for personal growth, a broadening of one’s horizons and the formation of enduring friendships. Tribune: Since it is a pparen t w hen o n e loo ks at student services or acad em ics that the University is truly giving a great d eal to the students, is there som ething that you feel the students should give in return to the University? Principal: The first thing that they can really give back to the University is to give us the pleasure of seeing them take as much out of it by way of benefitting from the McGill experience as they possibly can. The reward for the University for doing its work well is to see the students grow in the ways I have mentioned. If I were asking one thing and only one thing of the students who comes to McGill, it would be for him, at his gra duation, to be able to say that this University had met his expectations and provided a rewarding growth, development and experience. I would also hope that when our students leave the University they will continue to have a com mitment to it. It is more than simply being a regu lar contributor to the Alma Mater Fund. We need our graduates to give us ideas for the continuance of the institution of McGill University. Finally, I would like to see those who leave this place becoming ambassadors, not only for McGill, but also for the mission of a university education in a time when our society dearly needs good repre sentatives for that cause. T ribune: Finally, is there a greeting o r a w elcom e that you would like to exten d to those w h o a re new to McGill o r those w ho are returning? Principal: Being very personal about it, I would hope that students’would be able to duplicate my university experience - not in the same way, but with the same results. I was challenged and stretched to think more deeply and more clearly than I had ever been or ever thought I could be. My perspective on myself and the world became sharpened and I developed friendships and asso ciations that brought me great joy. To put that another way, I think one of the neglected blessings of life is that of motivation, of getting excited about something, to enjoy working hard at it and becoming involved in it. There is a factor related to the individual, but I would hope that McGill provides the ingredients to make that blessing a reality.
Senate Sends SIR Back to Council by Arnie Swaig The Senate of McGill University refused to rat ify the Student Initiated Referenda package which students approved in a referendum last year. Senate met in May to consider the proposal which would have allowed individual students the right to have any question relating to the Students’ Society voted upon by the student body. The concept of SIR is of fundamental impor tance to students, as the proposal would create a new level in the democratic process of student government. SIR would enable students to com municate directly with their Council, offering its members direction on issues of particular significance. The SIR package, which was presented to the students on March 10, was flawed in that it neg lected to afford Senate the right of veto over referenda. Students’ Society Past-President, Liz Norman made an attempt to ensure Senate that it
was not the intention of the Students’ Society to curb the rights of Senate. Ms. Norman stated that “the approval of Senate on constitutional amend ments had not been an issue; it had been lost in the printing and should be added...’. In effect, Ms. Norman suggested to Senate that it accept her motion to add a clause to a package which stu dents had already voted upon. Senate members were reluctant to adopt Ms. Norman’s motion until students actually had an opportunity to vote on the part of the proposal which was omitted during the printing process. Outgoing Dean of Students, Dr. Michael Herschorn, stated that “although there had been assurace that there was no attempt to remove Senate approval, the effect of what had been presented to the students was to remove such approval and that therefore it was appropriate to refer the whole matter back to the Students’ Society Council.” The present Executive Committee concurred
with Dean Herschorn’s appraisal of the situation and corresponded with senators prior to the vote in order to call Senate’s attention to discrepencies in the SIR package. In a letter to Senators, then Students’ Society President Elect, Bruce Williams voiced his reservations about the legitimacy of the referendum, stating that “some of the important principles contained in this major amendment were not reflected in the question appearing on the ballot, nor had they been discussed in any public forum...” Last year’s Students’ Council even voted to change the referendum ballot from one which listed all the changes to one which asked a very general question and effectively masked the real issues.” The concern of the Executive Committee was further reflected in the letter to Senators from Benjie Trister, then Vice-President ExternalElect, which stated that “we have not received any indication that students support the entire pack age of the SIR. Indeed, it would be difficult to
argue, in good conscience, that students had a fair opportunity to consider the full package. The text of the proposal did not appear at most of the polling booths. In addition, Council did not set up the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ committees, as is required in our regulations.” As the result of Senate’s action to refer the package back to Council, the fate of the SIR proposal now rests with Council. In its represen tations to Senate, the Executive Committee committed itself to bringing the package to a vote as soon as possible. Therefore, the Committee has referred the package to the Constitution Committee, mandating its members to formulate a package which includes all of the proposals of the previous package, as well as the clause requir ing Senate approval. The new SIR package will form part of a rewrit ten Constitution of the Students’ Society as pro-
continued...page 2