the Other Press

Page 4 November 10th to 25th 1982. ~

.

 

 

(~ Bye-bye, Old Campus

As production night draws closer, I have to think about
this old building that I have spent many a sleepless night
(including this one) in, putting together the student
newspaper. It occurs to me that this may be the last time
the Other Press is produced.

All thoughts are now turned to the new building as

classes officially start to move today, November 9th. I
wonder how student life will be differ once we are
relocated into the shiny new building. The old McBride
site may be ugly, but it’s comfortable.
Things are going to be pretty stiff at the new college; with
administrators worrying about anything tarnishing the
new building. We as students will have to treat the new
building with respect, wich is expected of people who are
given a $40 million building in which to learn.

I feel sort of sorry for the old building, neglected and
pushed aside in the excitement of the move. I keep
thinking that the atmosphere at school in the new building
will be somewhat regimental compared to the relaxed
atmosphere I feel we all enjoy at this old campus. I’m
hoping that the students can assimilate to the newness of
ce building and eventually make themselves feel at

ome.

by Caroline Hardon

 

 

 

 

4
+e nee ae

ee ee

 

 

Re: The “‘article’’ printed
Sept. 30 by Warren Laine.

I didn’t think I had a
mandate to monitor anything
written before the time of my
election, so I left that one
alone. I now find out that I
have certain responsibilities
for that time.Fortunately, I
was spared having to com-
pose a long response to the
printing of the article by the
individuals who responded in
your letters column. There is
little I need add to their
statements concerning por-
nography.

My concern is why on
earth did you print the thing
to begin with? The headline,
“Pornography; A _ Philoso-
phical Look’’ makes it quite
clear that the piece is at best
opinion, devoid of research,
or any authorative attribu-
tation. Why was it run as an
article? Was there feeling on
staff that the piece was
somehow amusing? From my
point of view, the work is
blatantly sexist, offensive to
men and women, in direct
violation of the CUP ban on
sexist and racist material,
but certainly not amusing.

I suggest your staff ana-
lyze the decision-making
process that preceded the
printing of the article. Were
the women on staff even
aware of its printing? If there
were objections raised, were
they voted down of laughed
down? I am honestly con-
fused. Decisions concerning
the use of art or certain
words can be difficult, seem
unclear. But this was so
clear.

On to my next question.
After you received so many
letters in response to the
offensive article, why did you
give the writer space on he
letters page?

The letters page is the one
space in which the students
have a direct method of

e The Other Press Is Human Too!

response to the newspaper.
To write a letter to the
newspaper and have your
response belittled and
mocked makes that letters
space a mockery itself. Fur-
ther, after individuals have
put their names to a letter
that they obviously re-
searched better than the
writer of the original article
troubled to, to be referred to
by the sexist and patriarchal
term ‘ladies’. is inexcus-
able.

To be referred to as a lady
implies not only an enforced
moral code, separating
‘nice’ women from ‘bad’, a

separation that serves men

in maintaining an_ ethical
hold on women, it also
reinforces the class structure

concept. ‘‘Ladies’’ don’t
work, ‘‘women’’ do, etc.
Kelly Jo Burke

Western Region Canadian
University Press
Human Rights Co-ordinator

 

Dear Ms. Burke

Thankyou for your well
placed concern about our
treatment of Laine’s writings
about pornography.
- Yes, some women staffers
were aware of the public-
ation of the original piece.
While they disagreed with
Laine, they generally felt he
had the right to express his
views.

It’s not clear that we
violated the CUP ban on
sexist material. Obviously
the writing was sexist, but as
some of us read tt, the ban ts
only on edttorial policy. ‘‘Po-
rnography: A Philosophical
Look’’ was identified as ‘Ot-
her Opinion’ rather than
staff opinion.

You're quite right that we
should not have printed La-
ine’s reply to the letters. The
letters page is no place for
such material.

The Nuclear Awareness

Group expresses its thank to
“‘The Other Press’’, and
especially to Nancy Powell,
for their excellent coverage
of NAG’s activities. How-
ever, the article which ap-
peared in the October 28
issue leaves a few points to
be clarified:
1. NAG is NOT attempting to
Cxganize a similar group at
Kwantlen College. Instead,
students of that college are
already in the process of
establishing their own
group, and we are in contact
with them.

2. Yes, we do meet every
second Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.
at Jim Davies’s office (N315)
and our next meetings will
be held on Nov. 9, Nov. 23
and Dec. 7. We apologize for
not being specific in stating
these dates and hope that
those who came on the
wrong Tuesday only to find
closed doors were not dis-
couraged.

3. Please notice that Bar-
bara Eby’s home _ phone
number is 936-2454 and not
936-2425 as stated.
_, As we have had several
positive responses since our
first campaign at Douglas,
we are optimistic that we will
‘‘Break DC Coma’’ over the
nuclear issues. After all, we
are only a new and relatively
unknown organization. How-
ever, we do not doubt that
students, staff and faculty
alike will come to support us
as they recognize our import-
ant role within the commun-

ity.

Barbara Eby
Secretary-Treasurer,
Nuclear Awareness Group

~

 

by Glen Nazaruk

For example, lateral or
creative thinking is generally
frowned upon in society.
Many people who take a
different approach from the
norms of the rest of society
are often thought of as
eccentric or weird.

Some of the greatest
thinkers in history such as
Newton and Einstein have
st own a disfavour for formal
education. The ability to
approach a problem in a
different way has often re-
sulted in enormous break-

 

eee regarding techno-

Think

About Lateral Thinking!

logical innovations and sci-
entific analysis.

Focussing upon lateral
thinking only and giving up
logical thinking could only
lead to impending disaster
when people wanting their
creative ideas developed
cannot agree on the most
logical way of implementing
them. It could only lead to
anarchy in its truest form.

A focus upon both levels of
thinking could only help
society by helping people
think for themselves and
create their own ideas.

The ability to apply princi-
ples in a logical fashion has
been given a lot of focus
throughout our formal edu-
cation from pre-school to
university level. Because of
this, people are often cynical
when a new way of thinking
is presented to them. They
are trapped in a maze of
intellect to the extent that
they are unable to exper-
ience or understand an idea
unless they have some past
experience or formal princi-
ple they can associate it with.

 

MELLLLLELA ESSA AEE EEL IE RPILLESELLLIS ESSA SAAN EELS ASSEN OA Reba

 

%

3