The Other Press is dimocratically run, autonomous student newspaper serving Douglas College since 1976. It publishes 16 times a semester, once a week, under the auspices of The Other Publications Society. Our funding comes by way of a direct student levy paid at registration and through local and national advertis- ing. The Otherr Press is a member of the Canadian University Press (CUP) and subscribes to it’s statement of principles.

OPS Board of Directors

Chaiperson: vacant

Members at Large: both vacant

Staff Representatives: David Mills and Tony Balasubramanian (Wow) Business Manager: Rob Hancock

OP Staff Production Co-ordinator: Ariel, uh,uh something, I don’t know, she’s new. Production Assistants: David Mills, Tony B., Michael Roberts, Michael Roth

Dean herson, Aaron Nelson, Shaun Lemay News Co-ordinator(pro tem): Ronaldo Horvat ——...

College Board Revisited

In a previous editorial "Government to Blame" (01/19/88), it was suggested that the present labor djspute at Douglas College is the result of the low priority that education is afforded by this, and previous provincial governments.

Citing figures from D.C. annual reports, the editorial illustrated the drop in funding levels between the years 1981 and 1986, and proposed a strategy involving a coalescence of the college’s students, faculty and administration, that would put pressure to bear upon the social credit government, to adequately support the college.

The facts and the underlying premise of the article were sound, but there were two fundamental errors which make the proposal of a united front, in retrospect, a rather fanciful and naive concept.

The first mistake was in regard to funding levels. The fiqures quoted pointed to a funding drop of $4.4 million between the year 1981 and 1986. Those facts are true, but they are misleading because they do not take into account the split be- tween Douglas and Kwantlen Colleges in 1982 which, of course on paper, creates a seemingly large drop in funds. However, by re-examining the figures again, a significant revenue loss is still evident, although not as dramatically as formerly believed.

According to Peter Greenwood, a Douglas College Accountant, the first year Douglas was separate from Kwantlan and in its new campus was 1983, the year D.C. recieved $12,339,813 from the B.C. Government. In 1986, funding totalled $13,213,941, an increase of $874,128 over three years.

It appears positive, but in reality is deceiving as the $4.4 million loss figure. The increase doesn’t take into account the. additional programs that were transferred to D.C. from B.C.L.T. During that time, specifically psych nursing, pre-tech- nologies, and a criminology expansion. Supplemental funding complemented these courses by approximately $2 million. Subtracting both the 2 million and a 5% inflation rate over three years leavesa decrease of approximately 30%. Therefore, even with this broader funding analysis, it is still apparent that the B.C. Government is abducting its responsibilities towards education.

The editorial runs into real problems though, in its second and most serious mistake. The appeal for unity amongst all concerned at D.C. contained a leap of faith with respects to the administrations ability to act independently.

The true state of affairs was outlined on January 8th, 1988 by the appeal court of B.C. in a case between the Douglas and Kwantlen Faculty Association and Douglas College which dealt with the validity of mandatory retirement, the court defined D.C. as being completely subservient to the government.

"This minister of education exercises control directly over many aspects of the activities of the college, co-ordinating continuing education programs, determining what the college should teach, and what other functions it should perform."

"Further, the minister exercises control through the college board. All members of the college board are appointed by the government and each member’s continued appointment is at the pleasure of the government."

Obviously, it is ridiculous to expect any formal statement from the administration that would criticize the government’s policies, assuming of course that those in administration wish to keep their jobs.

The college is shackled by a Socred appointed board. As an institution, the appeal court described the college best when it stated that Douglas College "is simply a delegate of the government to further the policy of the government with respect to post secondary education. The college has no independence.”

Is it any wonder that this college has problems? How did we ever get into such a Kafka Tale?

by Jeff McKeil

Editorial Co-ordinator(pro tem): Mike Roth : Laurie Lon

Entertainment Co-ordinator’ Features Co-ordinator: vacant

Classifieds Co-ordinator: vacant

Sports Co-ordinator: vacant

Graphics Co-ordinator(pro tem): Dean MacPherson

Photographic Co-ordinator: vacant

Human Rights Co-ordinator: vacant

CUP Co-ordinator: vacant

Readers: You

Contributors: Michael Roberts, Aaron Nelson, David Mills, Dean Mac- Pherson, Dave Nelson, Michael Roth, Matt Fisher, Jeff McKeil, Ariel (I don’t know!!!), Shaun Lemay, Rob Hancock - Dieter Hinz

And lo, another issue doth appear from the void. Apart from the fact that we can’t remember Ariel's last name, everything looks OK. I’m not in the same mindframe as last issue so I am able to defend myself from the ravenous spide- riders. Anyways, come down and help out or we'll set the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal on your trail. But don’t worry, it won’t leave our offices in Rm. 1602.

| |

Elections Again?

From this, the first week of February, Senate Elections at Douglas College seem almost as far away as final exams. Granted, another eight weeks will pass before either should start bothering us, but the fact is: both finals and elections are notorious for catching students unprepared. Hence, the Other Press is hereby proposing a solu- tion to one of the abovementioned predicaments. (Sorry, but you guessed it, the simplifying of final exams is beyond the power of this article.) Therefore, begin- ning next issue, the Other Press will grant interviews to all students interested in be- coming candidates for the Douglas College Senate. Positions include: President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer.

It must be stressed that the purpose of this series. is not to reveal the personal preferences of the interviewer. Rather, its objective is to provide a forum for Senate candidates in which to express their views, on the issues they believe to be of im- portance to the student body. The reasons for initiating such a series are, hopeful- ly, manifest: too often have Douglas College student body elections (and many others, for that matter...) been won solely on name recognition.

Unfortunately, the chances of educating an entire body politic are slim. Never- theless, the Other Press, along with all candidates who choose to participate, shall at least be fulfilling their role in providing information. (Besides, wouldn’t it be great to someday nail an elected Senate member on breach of election promises, seeing that his or her rhetoric would be preserved forever in the Other Press?)

If you are planning on running for council, and would like to take advantage of this forum, please submit your name, phone number, and the position for which you intend to run to room 1602, Attn. Matt Fisher. First come, first serve.

by Mathew Fisher

New CFS News

On Thursday, Jan. 25, at 12 pm, Rob Clift came to speak to the Douglas College student body on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Students. This was the CFS’ attempt to notify its member student population at Douglas about, if not some major issues, at least its existence. This drew a turnout of four people: Rob, the speaker; Fiona Cairns, a member of the Stu- dent Council; myself, reporting and one other concerned student.

Rob had intended to notify students about the state of post-secondary education in B.C., but because there were so few students, the problem of apathy logically became the topic. Rob had some very pertinent things to say and unfortunately could not convey them to many concerned students.

One of the problems the CFS, and all members of it, have is that The Government(s) does not care about student problems and issues, This is proven in the arguments used by federal and provincial governments, especially when dealing with stu- dent funding. According to Rob "Both the Provincial and Federal governments are deferring to a constitutional argument.” By this he means that the federal government, which does contribute most of the money to post-secondary education, does not feel it should contribute any more because education is under provincial jurisdiction. Our provincial government in turn wants the federal government to contribute more than it does, so that Victoria will not have to remove money from corrupt, but important, highway projects. By this reasoning, Ottawa has a stronger position than Victoria. The reason Ottawa does help the post-secondary education system is an ethical one. Ottawa views post-secondary education as a social program, similar to the Canada Pension Plan, Family Allowance, etc. But, on the other hand, Ottawa is not legally responsible for any education subsidies and can be exempt from the majority of the blame. The real root of the problem lies with the provincial government here in B.C. Our province has a very poor attitude toward post-secondary education, and this can be easily seen. For example, the ministry which governs us is the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Job Training. This implies that Victoria sees education only as a means of getting a job. By this they ignore education for education's sake; and seek to stifle the fundamental lust for knowledge by which society grows. Also, they see no need for a Liberal Arts education. This became evident when dealing with the over- crowding of courses here at Douglas. Their answer was to drop some Liberal Arts courses to make room for others which THEY deem more important. This is where the CFS gets involved. They hope to change the attitude of the government by motivating the students to act, to get something done.

As far as any sort of critical comment on Rob Clifts lecture and the CFS in general, I believe that their proof should be be in results. If they cannot get results without student involvement, then they should be gearing themselves toward getting stu- dents involved. This is something I don’t feel they do well enough. After all, who can say they are truly informed about recent CFS activities? The lectures given at CFS memberschools are too few and far between. Also, at a college like Douglas, the full scope of the CFS is not in place. Personally, I do not know where----- or how to get in touch with Travel Cuts ex- cept at UBC. Along with this, the StudentSaver plan is a joke. After looking in the little book given at registration, I planned to go to these shops. From cashiers I got looks of disgust, looks of confusion, long waits to ‘check it out’ and downright refusals. I didn’t appreciate the embarrassment! But that is enough editorializing.

It is apparent that the CFS, as a representative of the students, is not doing that great a job, for whatever reasons. The in- tentions are there, but the results are lacking. Perhaps if there were positive results of CFS endeavours, the student body could be notified of them somehow. If this occurred, CFS support would grow, and it could do the job it set out to do.

by David Nelson.