University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontarid

volume 15, special issue tuesday, november 5, 1974

Students and faculty at Renison College who are opposing the decision by John Towler, principal of Renison, to fiie Jeffrey Forest and Hugh Miller and prohibit the presence of Marsha Forest at Renison have formed an academic association in order to

further their demands. Starting Monday members of the association began the boycoti of classes and started picketing in order to further educate the other students of Renison as well as the students of the University of Waterloo.

Students boycott classes known and to invite specific re- constitution we will continue to be

S 1. Immediate reinstatement. Since these firings were arbitrary and au- tocratic and since these faculty members are not guilty of the only recognized. causes for such dismissals-moral turpitude, gross miscdnduct, academic misconduct or incompetence-we make the just demand that our teachers be reinstated immediately.

2. Resignation of John Towler. We feel this demand would be approp- riate even independent of the re- cent firings, Towler Has already proved himself intending to act against the best interests of the stu- dents. After the Faculty-Student Council had democratically voted a

-$lOO donation to the Ojibway War- rior Society to support the strug- gles of Native Peoples, Towler at- tempted to act on his own wisdom that Renison should not donate the money. When the student-faculty council resolutely demanded that he honour their wishes, he finally conceded but took the money from the academic support funds of indi- vidual faculty members, funds which are supposed to be under the direct control of each faculty member. He refused to allocate’the donation from the academic dis- cretionary fund and in fact ensured that this particular fund be transfer- red to his sole control; the fund conveniently became the prin- cipal’s discretionary fund.

While the physical state of Reni- . son has been deteriorating over the

past few years and while Renison suffers from a space scarcity, Towler saw fit to spend over $3,000

sponses to specific questions from vulnerable to whatever measures the board members particularly the he wishes to take’ to silence any Executive Committee, whose be- further faculty or students who haviour is unacceptable to, the stu- want to challenge his modus dents. operandi. 5. Democratic reorganisation. The 6. Exposure of documents. We raise late student-faculty council (this this issue in the interests of body is no longer recognized by the abolishing secret negotiations, a Renison academic students; we practice which we feel Towler has have reconstituted ourselves the instituted at Renison. Renison academic assembly) has 7. End in-camera sessions. Like the been fighting for a strong constitu- two previous demands, we raise it

to outfit his office in spiffy carpets and wali panelling. Meantime, part-time faculty share a virtual cupboard ior office space and the students have no office space at all. It is also noteworthy that even be- fore the renovatiois, Towler’s of- fice was-clearly the most spacious and attractive of all the offices at, Renison. His view of priorities are entirely unacceptable to the stu- dents.

Towler has done his level best to undermine the authority and credi- bility of the student representa- tives. Besides publicly defaming them, he has been reluctant to deal with them as a group. Instead, he picks them off, one by one, always iss&g individual invitations to his office parlays. In addition, he nev&r bothered to invite several reps to his little tete-a-tetes; those reps are now leading members of the protest orgdnization. From the beginning, they challenged Towler’s right to behave so autocratically; he was not about to be challenged and sim- ply ignored them. His actions gen- erally have had the effect of divid- ing the students and casting disper- sions on *the official representa- tives. (see story “How it Began”)

3. No reprisals. We refuse to have the academic freedom of the stu- dents and supportive faculty mem-, bers compromised by further dic- tatorial measures. Towler is not too concerned with academ’ic freedom as can be evidenced in the way the firings were handled. Jeff Forest’s letter subjects him to immediate dismissal if he participates in any

tion f&r awhile, a constitution as insurance against secret negotia- college body or action other than which would place power over im- tions. Had it not been for the sec- his classes. In other words, silence portant decisions in the hands of recy and distrust which Towler is is being enforced on him, to make students and faculty. This seems so handy with, we feel that none of him ineffective in the college for the more urgent than ever before to this could have happened. Since we duration of his term. protect ourselves from any repeti- want democracy and w,e want these 4. An open hearing with the hoard. tion of the current situation. If particular teat hers, we would The students want an opportunity Towler is unconcerned with the never have allowed this process to . to clear theii- demands publicly, to students’ views about faculty and reach its absurd end if discussions make their feelings and intent- course contents, without a strong had been held openly.

Due to the firing of Jeff.Forest and Hugh Miller and the cummary dismissal of Marsha Forest from her position at Renison, all regarded as totally unfounded by many students, faculty and staff, as well as other members of the University of Waterloo academic community, students have begun an organized protest. We no longer recognize the student-faculty council and have reconstituted ourselves the Renison Academic Assembly. In a six hour meeting Friday Nov. 1, 1974 the Assembly voted in favor of decisive action and demands. A boycott of all Renison classes will begin Monday Nov. 4, 1974 and will be carried through until the three faculty members are fully reinstated and satisfactory negotiations on all other demands are in process with the board of governors. This does not meati that the educational process will cease; after the first two days of the boycott students and faculty will be encouraged to meet outside Renison.

We demand: 1. Immediate reipsfatement of Jeffrey Forest, Marsha Forest and Hugh Miller to their respective Renison College positions. 2. Resignation of John Towler. r 3. That no reprisals be taken against any member of our college community. . . 4. An open public ,hearing with the entire Renison board of*governors, all faculty, students and oth’er concerned parties: 5. A commitment from the board of governors that an immediate reorganization of the governing structures of Renison College be undertaken to reflect equal representation from all sections of this academic community as a safeguard against future exercise of arbitrary authority. 6. That all pertinent documents relating to the firings and related academic affairs be made available to all interested parties upon request. This specifically relates to certain defamatory allegations made by John Towler about faculty members, student rkpresentatives and the academic integrity of our institution. 7. An end to all in-camera sessions. The recent firings could only have occured in an atmosphere of secrecy and distrust. _

Z the chevron tuesday, november 5, 1974

No reasons for firings ,*

Thursday afternoon a great shock hPt the students of Renison College. Two of our professors were fired without warning and another banned from our class- rooms. Three of our teachers -amongst the most respected and best-were dismissed. The ques- tions that students began asking were, “Why?“, “How could they fire Jeff and Marsha Fgrest and Hugh Miller?, “What do we do next?” Emotions were high, many were angry, some began crying, others began organizing. All the students that knew of this action grouped together. En masse they

, entired the meeting room where the firings had taken place to speak

5 to the Executive of the Board of Governors. At this time there was oraly the principal, John Towler, and the chairperson of the Board,

. Reverend Conyard in the room. The two members were asked for

an explanation of this brutal action. No explanations were given! We were told that reasons would not be given without the consenit of the professors because it would be de- trimental to them. One student went directly to Marsha Forest and Jeff Forest received two letters

1 giving the principal and/or the Board of Governors their permis- sion to release the reasons for their dismissals. “We have nothing to hide,” they said. Still John Towler refused to disclose Ihe reasons. (Perhaps because he has non’e). After twenty minutes of fruitless confrontation, the students de- cided that further rhetoric was senseless.

Approximately fifty people re- grouped in the Moose Room to dis- cuss what further action should be taken to reinstate their professors.

Faculty

Boycott and strike were the main responses from the students. There was a consensus that a meeting should be held to inform others, who were not then present, of the unjust firings and the feelings of the students. Committees were set up to contact students and ask them to come to the next meeting at 11:00 a.m. ! On Friday approximately 100 people met in the Moose Room to be brought up to date on what had happened the previous day. Many came to show their support for their professors. The meeting lasted for six hours with positive reactions shown in support of the tliree.

It was the general consensus,of the meeting that a boycott of clas- ses should begin as soon as possi- ble. It was agreed by the majority of the Renison academic students at this meeting that Monday would be the beginning of this boycott. For two days picket lines will be

-formed and meetings will be held to discuss further actions and to allow the Board of Governors to have the opporttinity to negotiate with the students.

The issue is clear. Who runs Re- nison College? Is it John Towler as the strong arm of the Executive Committee of the Board of Gover- nors? Is it the faculty and students? It is not enough for Jeff, Marsha and Hugh to be reinstated because on any day three others can be fired. What we need and want is a complete and democratic restruc- turing of Renison College so this type of authoritarian rule cannot take place. We are taught that we live in a democratic country. If this is true then our three professors will be reinstated and a democratic I%enison will be built.

- statements Balasubramanyam Hyma: I was Board of Governors have acted surprised’by the firings due to the completely unprofessionally and fact that we were not made aware have exercised arbitrary authority

_ before-hand of the decision to do so in the firings. Their actions are un- (to fire); it did not in fact pass acceptable. It is encouraging to see through the Student-Faculty the strong protest sentiments the Council. students are justly expressing in Carole Irrizarry: No statement. their planned boycott. As a faculty (Part-Time professor) member I fully endorse th6 decisive Donald M’Timkulu: No statement. protest which the students are Mark Nagler: As far as academic launching in defense of stu-

‘integrity is concerned an explana- dent/faculty interests. tion with regard to what has hap- pened is owed to the faculty and

Jeri Wine: What happened is in- credible. The firing procedures

students of Renison. were ill-adviced. Werner Packull: The people in- Monna Zetner: The situation at Re- volved have my sympathy. I critise nison seems to me difficult for all the way the firings were handled. But at the same time I feel it is a

concerned. I certainly feel sym- pathy for my colleagues. However

matter between the Administration I do not fe&l that simplistic state- atid the individuals involved. ments or solutions are pertinent for Sandra Sachs: I am very much such- a complex situation, which

. shocked by what has happened. seems tti me a culmination of sev- As far as I *am concerned it is an era1 longstanding issues and prob- issue of principle of faculty being lms. I shall continue to hold clas- fired arbitrarily without adequate ses. I do not feel that a boycott is

? cause and without consultation, in helpful but I certainly do feel that a manner which entirely con- students should feel free to make travenes established procedure their own choices about the

- within the academic community. boycott. I continue to have some The underlined problems have to hopes that the present difficulty do_ with decision-making relation- may be resolved without serious ships between administration, fa- harm to anyone. culty and students and nothing Judith Miller: Many people espe-m whatever to do with the academic cially at Renison are seeing this as a competence of the people dismis- question of personalities, but I sed. I want to see them reinstated think that the issue is one of a clash immediately and a constitution between ideas of democratic par- worked out for Renison which ticipation and autocratic control. would ensure the participation of Darryl Bryant: An appalling man- students and faculty in the ifestation of arrogance, oppor- decision-making process, and pre- tunism and disregard- for faculty, elude the possibility of such a thing students and the college. I support happening again. the boycott. Harry Tuyn: No statement. The rest of the faculty members Marlene Webber: Towler and the could not be contacted.

CAUT - role

. “If the attempt to settle the mat- ter fails”, states the CAUT hand- book, “the university shall inform the member in writing of the charges against him/her in suffi- cient detail to enable himjher to prepare for his/her defense.” They continue in saying that A) within 14 days of the receipt by the member of the written charges. . .the uni- versity and the member shall meet to name jointly an arbitration committee. B) the arbitration committee shall consist of three professors from outside the univer- sity tiho are acceptable to the uni- versity and the member. C) If the university and the member are un- able to constitute an arbitration committee within 21 days the uni- versity and the faculty association shall jointly appoint a person of un- questioned integrity and indepen- dence from outside the university to act as an arbitrator. An arbitra- tion committee shall then convene and attempt to conclude their pro- ceedings and render their decision as expeditiously as possible.

In light of the recent firings at Renison College, of Hugh Miller and Jeffrey Forest, teachers a? many universities may be asking themselves “Can I be called in to- morrow and be advised of my dis- missal and can I have virtually all of my rights in that institution bet- ween the time of the announcement and the time of my dismissal, taken away from me ?” Though Renison Administration would wish it that easy, it may not be. All university teachers are protected in this area by a body called the Canadian As- sociation of University Teachers

(CAUT). Canadian utiiversities be- long to this organization and al- though many small university- affiliated colleges, such as Reni- son, are not direct members, they are expected to follow the policies

-and guide-lines laid down by CAUT. \

On the question of academic freedom CAUT states that “Academic freedom includes the right within the university to decide who shall teach, who shall be taught, and what shall be studied, taught, or published. Because a university’s essential concerns are intellectual, academic freedom in- volves the right of appointment of staff or admission of students re- gardless of race, sex, religion, or politics. It involves the right to teach, investigate and speculate without deference to prescribed doctrine. It involves the right to criticize the university.. . . Academic freedom concerns the university as an institution; it con- cerns the students; it concerns the faculty. ’ ’

Reasons for the dismissal of a fa- culty person are strictly limited to two areas; gross misconduct and persistent neglect of a professor’s duty to his/her students or his/her discipline. If there is reason to be- lieve that adequate cause exists the CAUT gives definite guidelines as to the’ procedure that should then ensue.

First, the person in question should be advised that his/her dis- missal is being recommended. They should then be invited to a meeting with the dean of the fa- culty. the president of the univer- sity, a disinterested professor who is acceptable to both the dean and the person in question and the head of the department. The teacher should also be permitted to bring and be assisted by an advisor of his/her choice.

“The CAUT (also) believes that the person alleging cause for dis- missal should not also be the one to judge the adequacy Of that cause. Since the president of the univer- sity must believe that there is evi- dence on which to bring forward a case on the advice of his/her ad- ministrators, he cannot claim’ to be impartial nor can the men/women who advised her/him. The Board of Governors is in almost every case the legal employer. Furthermore the board is bound to support the judgement of its chief executive of- ficer because refusal to do so would be tantamount to a vote of non- confidence and a request for resig- nation. Nor are the members of the board of governors likely to have the academic expertise to judge an academic dispute over compe- tence.”

It is obvious that gross neglect has been practiced at Renison Col- lege in the dismissals of Forest and Miller, in that not one of the forementioned procedures has been adhered to. It is evident that the onus is on the board of gover- nors to show adequate cause for dismissal and on Forest and Miller to defend these charges in a democ- ratic hearing before official notice of dismissal can be given. Clearly this has not been done. It is be- lieved that Hugh Miller was in- structed not to discuss the reasons of his dismissal and Jeffrey Forest has not even been given reasons.

The responsibility to a.ct on these injustices is encumbent on us, the students and the faculty of the Uni- versity of Waterloo. If we are to prevent the recurrance of arbitrary firings we must protest and we will. The issue is much larger than the immediate firings; it is a question of academic freedom and the interests which this and all universities serve.

The .:

The Principals’* Social Hour was held at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, Oc- tober 30th, 1974. John Towler, Principal of Renison stated that this was to be an open meeting with students to give them the opporiun- ity to openly air their views and/or grievances concerning affairs at the College.

As the ‘meeting began, two fa- culty members Jeff Forest and Mar- lene Webber were asked to leave, Towler stating he could.n’t and wouldn’t conduct the social hour in their prescence, a8 he felt that the lines of communication would be hindered. After a short protest by some students, the members of the faculty left. Again it was km- phasised that students could openly voice their concerns, free of any outside influences.

Since the students did not re- spond immediately to the above suggestions, Towler proceeded to express his concerns with regards to his responsibilities at Renison, its’ relation to the Faculty of Arts, faculty qualifications, and the rele- vance of course content and struc- ture. Towler then questioned the quality of teaching at Renison, since he had received complaint8 from some students. He made al- legations against unnamed faculty members inferring that about 10% of the faculty are unqualified to teach and that their degrees are questionable. He then suggested that he formulate an Advisory Committee from the Faculty of Arts, and his personal friend, an assistant director of social services to investigate.

He further stated that he had been told that if matters at Rehison were not. cleared up immediately, that within the next twelve tionths, negotiations would begin to sever the affiliation between Renison and the University of Waterloo.

Since student enrolment in the first year was higher than ever be- fore; since more students ‘from other universities and programmes on this campus are transferring,to Renison than ever before: since more students from Renison were accepted into graduate schools than any year previously; and since students who have graduated from Renison are being offered more jobs, the accusations and state- ments made by Dr. Towler can be only considered contradictory to reality.

Bill Townsend a member of the Executive of the Renison Board of Governors said “The board has operated in-the best.interests of the College. We’ve taken the neces- sacy legal steps. We do not have to give cause as to why Professor Forest &as dismissed. I do not plan to attend the Tuesday night meet- ing with the students.”

Renison Board of Governors member’, T. T. Ritson told the Chevron Sunday that “I am very upset and regretful that this has oc- curred. It is very unfortunate for Renison and it is a great pity. I have high regard for the people con- cerned and I wish it could be solved another way. One positive out- come could be the opening of communications between the Board and students.”

Other Board members could not be reached for comment before press time. .

tuesday, november 5, 1974 the chevron 3

Students of the Renison academic asspciation set up an information table in front of the Moose room at Renison college and urged stu- dents to sign a petition supporting the groups demands. Two of those demands are that the fired professors be reinstated and that principal John Towler, who initiated the firings, resign.

Reniiion: * a perspective .

Members of the ,I Renison Academic Assembly asked me to put together my perspective on what has gone wrong at Renison, on the events and process that pre- cipitated the current state of affairs where the principal feels it so urgent to purge three of my co- workers.

Clearly the atmysphere which drew me to Renisonjin Sept. 1973 has suffered a collapse. What was it like then -and where are we now? More important, what accounts for the purge?

The attractive, even compelling, qualities of Renison College even a year ago centered around the shared commitment of leading fa- culty and students to struggle to- wards the building of a programme which would reflect a co-operative model at both administrative and academic levels; Students and fa- culty wanted control over the de- stiny of their programme. They were determined to work out a rela- tionship to the power structure of Renison which would guarantee in- ternal control over such critical matters as hiring/firing, cur- riculum, budget priorities, and all the constitutional matters which ordinarily constrain academic freedom and locate unjustified powers in the hands of‘a top-heavy authority structure.

It would be a gross miscalcula- tion to suggest any radic$ intent; rather, it was a simple matter of ‘working out a structure to promote the decentralization of power and an attempt to administer that through a strong co-operative model which would legislate a dis- tribution of power for students and faculty.

Renison was compelling as well fbr its academic content. The guts of the College is the social science applied progrtimme and within it there seemed serious intent around constructing a curriculum and hir- ing teachers to accomodate an ex- amination of the real forces in the production -of social prg?olems as well as a conscientious application to questions of social change. My impression was that Renison did not want to play out the cbnven- tional function prescribed for universities-to produce mindless graduates who could be trusted to compliantly take their pre-ordained places in upholding the status quo.

So, as universities go, Renison held out much more than the nor-

ma1 amount of appeal. And, in fact, my favourable impressions were borne out. As democratic process demands, much of last year was spent in meetings and we gave birth to a process which by its nature invoked a steady diet of dissent, confrontation, and aroused pas- sions. But the atmosphere was open and contained quite easily the expression of the diverse views and programs which students and fa- culty put forth. It seemed we were struggling quite successfully to- wards a co-operative management model, though it was hardly com- plete when tie realized that stu- dents were not given parity in the decision making bodies. The point is that the seeds were there; we had every possibility of pursuing and realizing an unfamiliar situation where the real decisions which af- fect acadkmic life would be concen- trated in the hands of faculty and students. _ .

But we were nowhere near the level of development where most people would be ready‘ to recognize the absence of need for a chairper- son (principal in our case) and we all went about the business of find-

~ ing-a princibal to stabilize the tem- porary position which was being fil- led by one of our faculty members.

That process in which we sought out a principal who would find ac- ceptance amongst all of us and the Board of Govenrors, was, as any- one could predict, a thorny pi-ob- lem. In the final analysis when we hired John Towler-a decision which did not find universal acceptance, or anything akin to universal acceptance-many of us were floating around with the un- comfortable feeling that he might bring a much more authoritarian view of things than we would be interested in negotiating.

It did not take very long for our fears to bear fpit. In all conscience I can say that every conceivable effort was made by faculty and stu- dents to work in some kind of har- mony with.our new principal, who, with little haste, made it clear that he did not share our committment to democratic process. All the ap- propriate rhetoric was there when called for but as the early dtiys ex- posed, there was virtually no con- cert between whathe said and what he did.

We had worked very hard last year towards the formulation and approval of an honours program

and had hopes of initiating a co- operative program as well where students would have access to se- quential academic and work terms. There was every promise in the air that our proposals would find ap- proval. Yet this year we have suf- fered enormous setbacks and de- lays around the final passing of even the honours programme. Towler’s hand is conspicuously in

this stopping process. (see Federa- tion story, page 2).

At every turn we encountered resistance -outright refusal on occasion-to act on the democra- tic decisions bf our Student- Faculty Couhcil. Towler was to be in control, and that’s all there was to it. Insofar as our governing bodies supported his individual prejudgements on matters, he was willing to recognize our authority. But wherever we transgressed his

- wishes in our votes, suddenly the word would come down that we somehow acted beyond our privilege and rights. Towler’s most flagrant violation of our ex- pressed wishes. came around our decision to- donate $100 to the Oj ibway Warriors Society. Towler thought it inappropriate and would not yield. Only because we per- sisted was the check finally drawn but it came not from the fund which should support such allocations; rather, without our consent, he used our meagre academic support funds.

The examples of his violations of our coll&ctive will are many, each more disturbing than the last. His actions, which have extended into efforts to undermine trust in faculty members and student representa- tives, have culminated in a general atmosphere of fear-fear that we are being led into the noose of heavy constraints against the exer- cise of any democratic process.

The rampant speculation around what might be going on behind our backs erupted this week in the final exercise of arbitrary authority -the firing of two faculty members and impossible restrictions on a third.

At this point we find ourselves in a situation which is the polarity of everything we have worked to es- tablish, and the most offending irony is the tacit understanding on Towler’s part that we have no choice but to accept his dictum.

But the democratic seeds were w’ell rooted before Towler took re- sidence in his newly decorated of- fice, and those seeds are growing into a democratic organization far beyond the scope of Towler’s worst nightmares.

Towler missed the most impor- tant historical lesson of all-that we &nnot possibly go backwards. His presence enforced only a temporary regression, a short set- back. But those of us, faculty and students alike, who are outraged by the preposterous actions of late, will carry forward the promises to democratise Renison, to make it a model which will continue to draw progressively minded people.

Human rights a Colin De’Ath on behalf of the K-W Human Rights Caucus:

The secretive nature of how this decision was made is unacceptable. This issue has implications for the rest of the Waterloo university community and we fully endorse student participation in this mktter. The Human Rights Caucus urges the university faculty and student body to become involved so this type of arbitrary procedure does not become the norm. /

Someth-ir different

Once again, it’s that time of term that all the engineers look forward to, and the rest of the campus dreads-Engineering Week!

This year, tours of the different departments of the Faculty have been organized to acquaint the stu- dent body and the public at large with the different research projects and facilities that normally remain hidden in some dark corner of E-3. It’s amazing just what you can miss discovering in five years hard labour here, so treat yourself to a free tour. Monday is tour day for the Electrical Department; Tues- day, for Mechanical Department, and Wednesday, for the Chemical Dept. All tours leave the E-4 Lounge starting at 12:30 PM (and continuing al2 afternoon). Once again, it’s open to everyone!

The Second Annual Volley Tournament will be running all week in the E-4 Lounge. If you have a supple wrist and quick re- flexes, sign up on the sheet posted by the Volley Machine. There are prizes galore!

Tuesday night, from 7:00 P.M. to ,. 1:00 A.M., the Black Bubble Cof-

fee House will come out of hibera- tion. With cheap donuts and coffee and free entertainment, this is going to be a good spot to relax from the pressures of mid-terms.

Wednesday will be occupied by the Chemical films and cartoons shywing contipuoysly in the E-4 Lounge. Come out, have a svb or donut and watch Godzilla meet Bambi.

In an effort to provide, entertain- ment for everyonej Eng. Sot. has organized a Scavenger Hunt for all of yoti amateur and professional kleptomaniacs. Get your team to- gether now (maximum of six people per team) and show up in the E-4 Lounge at 9:00 P.M. to pick up your own personal “MPission lm- possible”.

At noon on Friday, the survivors of the Volley Tournament will meet in the E-4 Lounge to decidk the champion. Come out and witness

these mam&oth* battles as the giants battle for top honours.

Friday night is an event that no- one will want to miss! The lntra- Provincial Boat Races will be held in the SouthXampus Hall at 8:00 P.M. with crews ‘representing all the “other” Engineering univer- sities gatheripg in another fu_tile at- tempt to wrest the Provincial Trophy from the hands of the U. of W. Engineering body (fat chance2, ( Remember, this is a gentle.m’an’s _ (and lady’s) event, so open your throat and let the good times pour! Admission price is 50 cents and everyone is welcome.

, Saturday morning, for those hardy souls that will be moving, there are two great events being staged. Starting at 9:30 A.M. on Columbia Field, the annual Mud Bowl football championship will tear up the turf in all-out effort to win the coveted trophy. Enter your class’team in the Eng. Sot. office by Thursday, Nov. 7th.

At lo:30 A.M., all the Jackie Stewarts on campus will meet in Parking Lot ‘0’ (‘0’ for optometry) / to check in for the Pub Rally. En- tries should be submitted to the Eng. Sot. office ‘by Thursday, Nov. 7th. Entry fee is $4.00 per car,

,driver and navigator. Motion sick- ness pills, brown paper bags and a supply of aspirin are recommended supplementary equipment. Come out and see’if you can read a map by 12:00 Noon.

Finally, as a grand finale, Eng. Sot. proudly presents “A FALL AFFAIR” - this year’s Engineey- ing Semi-Formal, to be held in the Viennese Ballroom of the Waterloo Motor Inn at 9:00 P.M,Entertain- ment will be provided by OPUS 11. A hot and cold buffet will be served at 11:00 P.M., with drinking and dancing continuing into the wee hours of the morning. Tickets are $10.00 per couple and they are av- ailable from the Eng. Sot. and Math Sot. offices. Hurry to get yours though, because they go fast.

Hope you enjoy your week!

member: Canadian university press (CUP.). The chevron is typeset by dumont press graphix and published by the federation of students incorporated, university of water-loo. Content is the sole responsibility of the chevron editorial staff. Offices are located in the campus centre; (519) 885- 1660, or university local 2331.

. - CSirculation: 13,000

the renison affair will certainly be talked about many years hence when we’re all getting old and grey hopefylly in favourable terms though renison principal john orchard towler might want to register his disag- reement on the latter point or then again he might also be happy with the exciting outcome of this return to the days of confrontation politics. Production on this special issue: marisa miller, barb innis, patty gilbert, phil fernandez, carofyn sawyer, janet Steele, .rick degrass, ian layf ield, the dumont ducks, the federation bureaucrats and)wo ageing chevron hacks.

4 the chevron tuesday, november 5, 1974 .-

/-

UPP the enison. open meeting Tuesday November 5 7:oo P.M. Rm. 44 Renison 11 . meet with Renison board of governors I

Federation dents information meeti

Thursday November 7

1:00 p.m. *

campus centre’

1 ‘; - .