by Patrick Hayes Imprint staff “Pretty young ladies sitting in front of a consul like a typewriter, could fight a nuclear war without hating anyone!“, said Professor Anatol Rapaport. “1 did not say nuclear weapons would lead to a final holocaust. What I am saying is that (they) might! Use of violence is wrong!” Professor Rapaport, of University College, Toronto, was one of 25 speakers to address the Waterloo Conference of Philosophy and Nuclear Arms, September 28 through the 30th. The conference was an academic exercise, not open to the public, and addressed the concepts of logic and morality in the nuclear age. It was organized by Professor Jan Narveson (U of W Philosophy Department) and was hosted by the University of Waterloo, in conjunction with Conrad Grebel College and Wilfrid Laurier University. Professor Rapaport’s argument was the most basic, but set the stage for what was to follow. Professor Dave Gauthier of Pittsburg, took a more cautious approach when he explained that it is desirable to get from “‘threat structures” to “trade structures”. “But,” he said, “I am not convinced we can use a love concept in an operational concept .” “To disafm,” he said, “would be for mutual benefit. But we
cannot get from threat to trade simply by throwing away threats. “The point should be,” said professor Conrad Brunk, “to extricate ourselves from the deterrence situation.” Professor Brunk, chairman of the Peace and Conflict Studies department of Conrad Grebel College, based his argument on the current theory of excalation dominance,dbr the perception that, “one side could be better off than the other,” given more choices of action. “The Soviets adopt the same type of policy of escalation dominance,” he said, “not Marxist theory, causing a mad rush to achieve nuclear dominance. We are caught in a Hobbesian dilemma.” Professor Russel Hardin, from Chicago, said the “reciprocity” of counterforce weapons (those weapons used to knock out an opponent’s weapons systems, leadership, command and control targets) is the worst concept, adding, “Strategists don’t know any better; philosophers should know better!” In conclusion, Professor William Seager, of ‘Toronto, drew the analogy between the world community and the two f‘ueding families of the Hatfields and the McCoys, who live in a small town. Both families hate the capacity and the will to destroy the tow 11 . given the provocation.
by Hikka McCaIILma imprint staff -‘They sal culback, we say fight back!” was the rallying cr) of students marching in front of the Board of Education at Wellesley and Bay St. in Toronto. The), were there on FridaJz. September 28th to protest the Bovey Commission. The march, organised by the Guelph Central Students Association (CSA), was held in conjunction with the last day of the public hearings of the Commission. John King, CSA president, estimated there was a turnout of 200 people. Over 150 of those were from Guelph University because Guelph had given the march much publicity, with speeches and posters on campus. Specifically, the aim of the Bovey Commission is to trim faculties, programs and staff, and to raise the academic entrance standards.
.iotin King. e‘-‘CA L) President. said that if the funcling sta) s the sime. the qualit>, oi‘education cannot be kepr up. The students at the malch had the same opinion. Lil Curtis a &,e!ph student. said that the gobernment’s proposal means
He believes that “‘universities must bc expanded funding iilcrt2ased in ortier to i3enef‘it socit.t\. . 3‘he Guelph CSA heaci!y publicised the protesi marked the last day ol the Commission hearings.
“Efficiencv
said that the lack of other
streamlining the unitersities”. Anothei student at Guelph Mike Cogill, stressed that &‘we (the students) are the tlectorate. the taxpayers” and that the
students should be making the education decisions. A third Guelph student, Nancy Morrow, felt that there should be “equal access to universities regardless of wealth.” Jim Ryan, CSA VicePresident External at Guelph, said that “funding should be maintained” because there are too many courses restricted by quota. According to Mr. Ryan the ministry should not cut OSAP loans because many families that are above the $10,000 earning bracket are still unable to finance their offspring(s) education.
Speaker
grstuws-
must do all that he or she can to ensure that WPIRG continues to scr\e people and tell them what is going on abroad and in our own backyards. As a board member I am prepared to give my time to help direct WPIRG and to work with its staff to see that the interests of WPlRG and the community are always pursued.
Brad Wyliynko: Environment
4th
year
Man-
Fire, earth, air, and water were the elements , from which all alchemists plied their trade. Today we understand far more than these building blocks, but at the same time out technology has in many ways isolated us from the realiration that we are still dependent on these basic forms. WPIRG is an organization on the forefront of getting people to understand their connection to the environment. I wibh to bring my cnbironmental and legal background (4th year man-environment plus 1 year law school) to this organisation to help it achieve its goals. 1 am asking for your support to elect me to the WPIRG board of directors.
Stephen Mechanical
Thwaites; Engineering
4th
year
EHi, YOU mav be surprised that a 4th year cnglnecrlng student want> of be a WPIRG director. I’m not. Mostly because 1 ’ are” one. In Iact l’ce beenadireclor twice before. I.aht L\inter and the previous bummer. Both times 1 j\as an Interim dIrector. iiltlng in lor dll.t:ctorx :)I1 :\(?:‘A tcrrn’. i a1\c hept 1n iouch with \?
E31kC ’
;
tiLIJIJIGT
il\
~LIJlJlc‘I
Li Ol.l\
1cJ.m
il
KILC~CII~I.. SO. rather Ihan spcndlng the jir\t 111011th
i
can
01’
\O
ntahe
CCELlng ;1rJ
10
k!10\2
tile
c:i~g~ll/aio~l.
:mmediatc cc:ntr-lbutlon.
by John L. Tracey Imprint staff A potentially heated issue has once again surfaced on campus: alleged underfunding and underpayment. At a meeting of the Board of Governors, U W president. Douglas Wright said that UW faculty “are underpaid”. Faculty association president Bob Needham augmented this claim in a separate interview. When reached for comment, Dr. Wright was hesitant to discuss the issue at length. He did say that he felt an the board underacross payment of faculty members existed. The earnings of the faculty, Dr. Wright conceded, had “slipped”. Work loads have increased during the last few years by a substantial degree, he added. When pressed for more detail, Dr. Wright declined. Bob Needham was quick to point out his agreement with rhe University’s president. He noted that the floor of the associate professors rank ia minimum salary for Associate Professors) has fallen. net cl inflation, about thirti
student
association
and
habe
because it John King participation
“‘irritates me to IJO end. because classroom speaking and posters cannot explain the whole issue”. He urged the student bodies to publicly denounce the commission.
Peter Klungel Chairperson of the Board of External Liaison at UW responded by saying that the Federation of Students did not publicize the event because it believes in “lobbying behind the scenes”. A public demonstration would be “a waste of time, effort and money that could be used in better ways”. Mr. Klungel felt that most U W students wouldn’t be interested in “trekking down to Toronto because radical protests never get anything done.”
e
ook 7’he following are the five candidates running ior the three positions on the Waterloo Public Interest Research Group Board of Diretors. Those eligible to vote include all undergraduate students who hate not received a $2.50 per term refund or graduate students and communit>r members who have paid a $5.00 annual lee. Here are a few points to consider when casting j’our ballot for WPlRG board members. * All directors are expected to actively represent W’PlRG on campus. The board of directors is the student leadership of W PI RG: * There are no set rules outlining exact]), what a WPiRG director can do. Most important to consider is that members 01 the board share a strong social and environmental conscience; * Lastly, the board along with the staff decide which speakers, films, and projects will be sponsored. and how WPI RG money will be spent. Uni\erbit! of Waterloo students are urged to \ otc at either poll in the Campus Centre or South (‘ampus Hall from 9:30 to 3:30 on Wednesda!. October I!)th.
at Philosophy* and Nuclear War conjkrenw. Imprint photo by Patrick Hayes
percent fron I97 1. He recommended an across the board raise of thirty percent for the faculty, citing similar inequities in pay for faculty ranks other than associate professor. If one compares professors with any other professional groups, Prof. Needham continued, it is obvious that no other group has taken such a reduction in pay over such a period of time. Professor Needham cites student-teacher ratios as another indication ofjust how unfair this disparity is. These ratios, he said, show how the work load of the faculty has increased. Waterloo’s ratio, in the order of 23: 1, is “higher, I
think, than all (other) universities in Canada”. If one understands that this situation means that more work is being done for less money, Prof. Needham said, then the injustice is clarified. Professor Needham asserted his desire to continue to work towards rectifying the situation by means of the Faculty Salary Steering Committee. While saying that provincial underfunding was partly to blame for this problem, Prof. Needham also accused the administration of the University of using money on other projects, neglecting salaries.
Commitment
To Interviews
Once you submit li’our IA/ant i “ids ;ob %pplication I
eI
mi
mitte
and subsequently to any job you are matched with as a result of the interviews.
r
J
i‘orm or apply
BciIletin committed inieriietis
to -iobs on the
Boards.
>‘ou
1 ourseif )‘ou may
ha\e
to any receive
You
from
cannot interviews
i tllzson once \ ou placement process.
uithdraw for ani: begin
the