| avatar he avava

Published by Student Services
Emily Carr College of Art
249 Dunsmuir Street
Vancouver V6B 1X2

Let the dialogue continue

Dear X,
Last issue | was involved in writing and sending two letters to X.
One | wrote supporting Makara for not wanting to typeset material

they considered sexist. The other which | co-wrote with Franda

Wargo was a response to Colin Fenby.

Our reply, which for my part, came out of my annoyance at
Colin’s methods of investigation was somewhat sarcastic. This
allowed the letter to fail on several levels:

* First — It could be seen as an attempt to belittle Colin as opposed
to his methods.

* Second — It failed to point that while Colin was apparently just
making some observations and even asking to be set straight, his
letter was accusatory and hostile in tone.

* Third — Some of Colin’s observations were inane, if not down-

right illogical, while others were merely wrong. While the intent ot
Franda’s and my letter was to point out these errors, apparently
the point got lost for neither Colin nor the co-editors got it (more
on this later, folks).

* Fourth — Colin’s letter was frustratingly narrow and unclear and
dealt with the question of Design Research resource allocation
outside the context of the school as a whole. Our letter reflected

‘ our frustration with his approach.

If Colin’s letter had dealt with the issues of space allocation,
student enrolment or teaching philosophies in Design Research,
within the context of the entire college then readers of X might
have gained some useful information.

That these issues had already been examined in an outside

OO

STUML1E ag Cariosn—
STUDENTS :

The new Canadian student loan forms are
available through Student Services, as well as in-
formation about the Vancouver Foundation,
the Helen Pitt undergraduate awards, etc.
Information about the B.C. Cultural Fund is
on the way. Please complete forms as fully as
possible before returning them to the main
office at Dunsmuir Street.

—Student Services

I

A

Velie. | Number 16 | Sudert lehour| praprct (774.

evaluation of the Design Research program (not the same as the

recent faculty evaluations), Colin didn’t know. But then how.

could he; he didn’t ask. The co-editors didn’t know it either,
judging from their response. The ignorance of the editors of
Professor Sandahl’s evaluation | find pretty inexcusable, especially
since Steve Harrison cited it as a source of information in his letter
to X.

This raises what is, to me, the central issue of this whole
affair. Namely, what is the function of X, and what is the Respon-
sibility of the editors in carrying out that function?

There were several other sources of information that Mr.
Harrison listed in his letter. The editors apparently chose not to
consult any of these before responding. But if the editors are going
to publish an editorial response to issues at hand isn’t it their
responsibility to:

(i) find out what those issues are;

(ii) consider all aspects of those issues including the contexts in
which they occur;

(iii) be aware of the viewpoints of all the people involved;

(iv) publish that analysis, along with supporting facts, documents
etc., clearly enough that readers can follow the argument without
having to duplicate the process themselves, or without merely
having their own biases reinforced.

Insofar as | could tell, the co-editors fulfilled none of these
functions in their response to the letters that Steve Harrison or
Franda Wargo or myself wrote. The co-editors didn’t even check
their facts. Had they done so they would have known that Pro-
fessor Sandahl’s evaluation was done before, and was not in any
way connected to the recent faculty evaluations. Had they tried to
get a copy of his report they would have seen their and Colin’s
questions answered in the context of the whole school and that
changes were suggested not only for Design Research but for
other divisions as well.

Another point: Is it editorial policy to give letters out before
publication so that the people concerned can respond to them or
is it not? It would seem that it is policy because both letters |
wrote were responded to by other students in the same issue. But
on the other hand when people were writing articles about areas |
am involved in, | was given no knowledge of that and no chance to
respond until the next issue. So which way is it going to be?

Is it editorial policy to publish unsigned material? If so, it’s
one | strongly disagree with. It allows people to make attacks on
other people or divisions without having to take any kind of
responsibility for their views. It increases the level of alienation
within the school and blocks the furtherance of dialogues which
would allow students to start confronting real issues within the
school.

And finally, is it editorial policy to respond to submissions
sent in by other students in a patronizing and condescending
manner, as you have done in the recent past? If so, it’s certainly an
effective way of limiting student input to X.

However, this letter is not meant to trash the editors or
negate the amount of real work that they do. It is a purpose of
this letter to point out the need for consistent and fair editorial
policies and procedures for X. X could become a very effective
force for providing much needed information of the college —
information that they now apparently lack. A corollary to that
lack of information is a lack of any real power for students in
determining either short or long-term policies of the school.

For instance, while students are allowed to sit on a number
of committees at the school most of these committees are advisory
only — i.e. their decisions are not binding on the administration.
And on many, if not all, the right to sit on those committees is not
a right guaranteed them in the school’s constitution. Which means
we can be turfed out on short notice, folks.

X could, and | think should, become a means for dissemina-
ting real information to students. In turn, that information could
become a basis for students organizing towards having an actual
say in the policies and priorities of their own education — an
education that each of us is paying to receive.

—Jim Fraser

Jim,

Really, we’re both nice guys, and even though in some eyes
it may not appear to be so, we are very much concerned with the
welfare of students. Just remember when Paul Simon said, ‘‘Have
a good time,’ or ‘One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.”
However, more frequently it is heard that ECCA acts as a pheno-
menon to justify an administration and faculty in the name of
“art.” A “cris de conscience” seems to be developing wherein
more students understand they cannot afford to makea distinction
between how and what they’re learning and the priorities of the
financial and administrative structure which keeps the whole place
going.

Many students grasp the necessity for them of staying as far
away as possible from the strangeness of the administrative twilight
zone. On the other hand, students are going to have to get around
‘the usual liberal modifications to the structures of tokenism, to
the gap between student and faculty. Too often students are in-
volved in charades, in parodies of “being an artist” in a society
that ultimately knows nothing of what to do with them. So what
follows in response is a series of questions having to do with these
peculiarities.

The co-editors are ignorant of so much. However we do
know that anyone who raises questions of ‘‘personalities” is not
seeing beyond the end of their nose. It s appalling, perhaps it’s a
residue of real personal exasperations of those who smelled
‘revolution” on some hot, unclear afternoon in 1968 or 1970.
Who knows? Any issue of personalities, we feel, fails to give

credence to the more essential realities; in the instance of the
newsletter, this means let’s get on with the business that needs
taking care of.

The function of X is, if anything, to make known the pres-
ence of the students as a reality in the affairs and changes taking
place at the college, in the art and social milieu. Define that
however further you may wish and it still comes out saying that
students will continue to speak of whatever needs attention,
whatever needs correction. Of course this at any time includes
the dismissal of the co-editors. But let’s just not play around with
the same old centuries-worn mystifications, the liberal arts rhetoric,
and not having enough respect to consider that responses to ob-
servations might have some substance and are not attempts to
patronize. Let’s hope that we don’t have to continually deal with
smokescreens.

Alright, the noise over Design Research may be a dead horse.

[T- V4 KSs>>
Reason itself has become repressive.

We can see that quite possibly it’s absurd to question the use or
activity of any program at the college. But you see what has
occurred is that the faculty, many just recently nestling into new
forms of security, have passed this albatross over to the students,
by virtue of either an incapacity to achieve changes or just by
‘deciding that all the programs are exemplary. Are faculty members
under a great deal of stress of late?

However, shouldn’t we step back for a minute and consider
that students are working in a confusing environment, where it’s
one series of tricks after another, where there are big differences in
power politics, and students experience this when having to deal

“with any approved and certified faculty member. In other words,

it is only expected that faculty will be open to student observations
and suggestions for different educational approaches. It’s the
natural way. We’ve all been told that, haven’t we.

So we have some relative issues: for example, the safeness of
faculty positions until recently at any rate; entrenchment through
the support of the administration; then there is the neurotic be-
haviour, the situations where students simply find they cannot
work in ways which they want.

Sure, frustrations all round, right. Especially now. What’s
happening? Nerves ruffled. Perhaps what’s at stake is academic
survival. The faculty find they have to take better care of them-

— continued on page 4

=
Published by Student Services
Emily Catr Collage of Art
249 Dunamuir Strest
Vancouver V68.1%2

Let the dialogue continue
[Last issue | was involved in writing and sending two letters t X.
— One wrote supporting Makara for not wanting to typeset materia
they considered sexist. The other which | cowrote with Franda
Wargo wasa response to Calin Fenby.
‘Our reply, which for my part, came out of my annoyance at
Colin's methods of investigation ‘was somewhat sarcastic. This
allowed the letter to fall on several levels
+ First ~ It could be seen as an atempt to belittle Colinas opposed

to his methods,
* second ~ I falled to point that while Colin was apparenty just
|. making some observations and even asking tobe se straight, his
letter was accusatory and hostile intone.
* Third ~ Some of Colin's observations were inane, f not down

the point got lost for neither Cain nor the co-editor got
fon this later, folk).

— Fourth ~ Colin's ewer was frustratingly narrow and unclear and
ealt'with the question of Design Research resource allocation

‘outside the context ofthe school asa whole, Our letter reflected

ur frustration with his approach.

IT Colin's teter had dealt withthe Issues of space allocation,
student enrolment or teaching philosophies in Design Research,
Within the context of the enti college then readers of X might
fave gained some useful information

‘That these issues had already been examined in an outside

STUMLHE 24 Cortoou—

\  sTupents
The new Canadian student loan forms
‘available through Student Services, a well as
formation about the Vancouver Foundation,
the Helen Pitt undergraduate awards, ete.
Information about the B.C. Cultural Fund is
fon the way. Please complete forms as fully as,
possible before returning them to the main
office at Dunsmuir Street,
Student Services

FOIE EP Ef fH,

A
\Wemel Kumber 1S | Sudert lehown| eprl 474.

craluation of the Design Research program (oot the same a the
recent faculty evaluations), Colin didn’t know. But then how
could he; he didn't ask. The co-ditors didn't know it either,
Judging from their response. The ignorance of the editors of
Professor Sandah's evaluation | find prety inexcusable, especially
Since Steve Harrison cited iat a source of information in his eter
tox.

This raises what i, to me, the central issue of this whole

Namely, what isthe function of X, and what fs the Respon
‘ofthe editors in errying out that funetion?
“There ware several other sources of information that Mr.
Harrison listed in his letter. The editors apparently chote not to
consult any of these before responding, But the eitors are going
to publish an editorial response to fases at hand tnt i thelr
responsibiliy to:
(i) find out what those issues are;
(i) consider al aspects of those issues Including the contexts in
Which they occur;

i) be aware of the viewpoints ofall the people involved;

(i) publish that analysis, along with supporting facts, documents
‘et, clearly enough that readers can follow the argument without
hhaving to. duplicate the process themscives, without merely
‘Raving their own bass reinforced.

Insofar as 1 could tel, the co-ditorsfulfled none of these
functions in their response’ tothe letters that Steve Harrison of
Franda Wargo or myself wrote. The co-ditors didn’t even check
thelr facts. Had they done so they would have known that Pro:
{fessor Sandaht’s evaluation was done before, and was not in any
way connected to the recent fault evaluations. Had they ted to
{set a copy of his report they would have seen their and Colin's
‘Questions answered in the context of the whole school and that
changes were suggested not only for Design Reseateh but for
‘ther divisions a wel

‘Another point: Is i editorial policy to give letters out before
publication so that the people concerned can respond to them of
{sit not? It would seem that i Is paliey because both letters |
wrote were responded to by other students inthe same issue. But
‘on the other hand when people were writing articles about areas
am involved in, was given no knowledge ofthat and no chance 9
Fespond unt the next sue, So which way ist going fo be?

{sit editorial policy to publish unsigned material? If, i's
cone I strongly disagree with It allows people to make attacks on
‘ther people or divisions without having to take any ind of
Fesponsibilty for their views. It increases the level of alienation
Within the school and blocks the furtherance of dialogues which
‘would allow student to star confronting real issues within the

nd finaly, i it editorial policy to respond to submissions
sent in by other students in 2 patronizing and. condescending
‘manne, as you have done in the recent past? $0, is cetanly an
effective way of limiting student input 0 X
However, this letter is not meant {0 trash the editors or
negate the amount of real work that they do. Is 3 purpose of
{his letter t0 point out the need for content and far editorial
polices and procedures for X.X could become a very effective
force for providing much needed information of the college —
Information that they now apparently ack. A corollary to that
lack of information isa Tack of any real power for students in
‘determining ether short or long-term policies ofthe schoo
For instance, while students ar alowed to sit on 3 number
‘of committees atthe stool most ofthese committees ae advisory
‘only — Le. thee decisions are not binding on the administration.
‘And on many, if not al, the right to sit on those committes isnot
2 right guaranteed them in the schoo's constitution. Which means
‘we ean be tured out on short notice, folks
X could, and I think should, Become a means for disemina-
ting real information to students. In tutn, that information could
become a basis for students organizing towards having an actual
their own education — an

‘education that each of us paying to receive
tim Fraser

Really, we're both nice guys, and even though in some eyes
it may not appear to be 50, we ate very much concerned with the
Welfare of students. Just remember when Paul Simon sal, "Have
2 good time," oF “One man's celling is another man’s floor.”
However, mote frequently iti heard that ECCA acts as 3 pheno.
‘menon to justify an administration and faulty in the name of
"art" A “rls de conilence’” seems to be developing wherein
more students understand they cannot afford to makea distnetion
between how and what they te learing and the priorities of the
financial and administrative structure which keeps the whole place
ring.

Many students grasp the necessity for them of staying as far
away as posible from the strangenes of the administrative twilight
Zone. On the other hand students are going to have to get around
the usual Hiberal mouifeations to the structures of tokenism, ¢2
the gap between student and faculty, Too often students are in
volved in charades, in parodies of “being an artt™ in society
that ultimately knows nothing of what todo with them. So what
follows in response is a series of questions having todo with these
peculiarities

t of $0 much, However we do
know that anyone who rises questions of “personalities” fs not
seeing Beyond the end of their nose. It appalling, perhaps its 4
Fesidue of real personal exasperations of those who. smelled
“revolution” on some hot, unciear afternoon in 1968 oF 1970
Who Knows? "Any issue of personalities, we feel, fll t0 give

credence to the more essential realities; in the insance of the
newsletter, this means lets get on withthe business that needs
{aking ete of.

The function of X is, f anything, to make known the pres
ence ofthe students as a realty Inthe affair and changes taking
Place’ at the college, in the art and social meu. Define that
However further you! may wish and it sill comes out saying that
‘Students will continue to speak of whatever needs attention,
Whatever needs correction. Of course this at any time includes
the dismissal of the codtors, But let's just not play around with
the same old centurles-worn mystifiations the iberal ate rhetoric,
and not having enough respect to consider that responses to ob:
Secvatons might have some substance and are not attempts to
patronize, Let's hope that we don't have to continually dea! with

Alright, the noise over Design Research may be a dead hore,

#7 ESAS =
Reason itself has become repressive.

n See that quite possibly it's absurd to question the use or
activity of any program at the college. But you sce what has
‘occurred is that the faculty, many just recenty nestling into new
forms of security, have passed this albatross over to the students,
by virtue of ether an incapacity to achleve changes or just by
deciding that ll the programs are exemplary. Ate faculty members
tnder a great deal of stres of late?

owever, shouldn't we step back for a minute and consider
that students ate working ina edhfusing environment, where is
lone series of ticks after another, where there ate big differences in
power polities, and students experience ths when having to dal

“With any approved and certified faculty member. In other word,
itis only expected that faulty will be open to student observations
and ‘suggestions for different educational approaches. Is the
‘natural way. Weve all been fod that, haven't we,

So we have some relative issue for example, the sfeness of
faculty potions until recently at any rate; entrenchment through
the support of the administration; then there Is the neurotic be-

haviour, the situations where students simply find they cannot
work in ways which they want.

‘Sure, frustrations all round, right.
happening? Nerves raffled. Perhaps what’ at stake Is academic
survival. The faculty find they have to take better care of them

= continued on page 4

Especially now. What's