vou..s-uo.2o
f
CADRE
'ihe student's poppet"
APRIL :9. 1914‘
The following article written by a McGill student, is one of the most revealing and pro- vocative articles ever to come across my desk. It reveals the use of knowledge and prof-
essional authority by imperi- alistic universities and fac- ulty. Compare with UPEIl!
w To make it easier for you I will point out a few: Baker.
ImperialisI-Fuscists at U.P.E.I.?!
- AN OPEN LETTER TO MCGILL . STUDENTS:
Fellow Students;
In my Political Science course at McGill our profess- or gave us the following exam question worth 65/100 exam points. The exam itself is worth 25% of the final grade. The question reads as follows: "When it comes to state-to-state relations, ideaology is efglittle con- sequence. In its name many contradictory policies can and have.been pursued. Ideo- logy only lends a cover of legitimacy to the underlying pursuit of state interests.’ Regardless of your personal position in this matter, 1 \ write a systematic essay,
backed by concrete data, in
support of this preposition with reference to the for- eign policy behaviour of
the People's Republic of
China. (One hour)."
This is a most treacherous question and because I refu- sed to answer it I and anot- her student in the class who also refused to answer it were given the equivalent of a failing grade in the exam. The reason I failed is be- cause I failed to go against all principle as the profes- sor demands in the question and refused to slander the People's Republic of China. No amount of professors will make me give up principle and turn truth on its head in this shameless manner. I st- rongly protest that this pro- fessor should be allowed to misuse the responsibility entrusted to him to teach at McGill in order to make an entire class turn truth com- pletely on its head and slan- der the People's Republic of China. The essence of what this professor has done with his exam question is to ex- pose himself as a thorough- going scholar despot, for if the students refuse to answer the question, that is, if
‘ they refuse to slander China, they will fail the exam.
_More than expose this prof- essor as a dishones-intell- ectual and a scholar despot
who-dictates to his studenth
'either you slander PeOple'S‘
China like I want you to do or else you must fail' and who teaches us to be dishon- est, this exam question exp- oses the very nature of the imperialist university and the purpose it is designed to serve, ‘ The imperialist university teaches us to be able to de- bate a question, to prove an .argument, to talk any nonses nse that it is possible to talk. Never is it demanded of us that we should stand up for principle or that we should seek truth from facts
to serve the people. The fir-
st trick played is to claim that the world is a matter of definition, discussion &
interpretation and that there is no such thing as objective
Rahman, Milne, Smitheram, Mc- Lellan, Ellison, Love (Harry), gharkey, Hennesey, et. a1.
Editor
reality. In this way, the professor demands that "rega- rdless of your personal view: "write a sustematic essay" i.e. "prove", "with concrete data" that for the People's Republic of China "ideology is of little consequence.
In its name, many contradic- tory policies can and have been pursued. Ideology only lends a cover of legitimacy to the underlying pursuit of state interests", i.e. China is an imperialist country.
contpg-Jo