Freedom Flyer 11

Dear Editor:

It is not surprising that Professor Neill who thinks that threats, demands, force, violence should be a part of the "intellectual enlightenment" of today's universities, would also advocate force as the only way a group can be united and speak with power. It is morally wrong to form a group without the consent of all of its members. It is also legally wrong when it involves money. Money taken from individuals without their consent is against the law and is usually called stealing (only unions or the government can do this legally) but this is what would happen to slightly less than half the support staff, if a union is allowed into this University. Today's unions make decisions only in terms of the good of the whole (the needs of the majority); one must remember how many atrocities have been committed against individual human beings (all over the world) in the name of the very same, very worn out, meaningless phrase, "For the Good of the Whole." Whole of what? If the administrators deal only with numbers rather than with people now, will they deal with us in a more human perspective when they are pushed into a corner and presented with an ultimatum?

I cannot sympathize with Professor Neill for having lost his illusions 19 years and 10 months ago. Perhaps he should have left the university at the same time he lost his illusions.

No, most of us are not perfect and we do not expect perfection. Most of us are not infallible, we do make mistakes, but all of us need ideals. Unfortunately, only some of us have them. However, there is no exoneration for those who have had ideals and have knowingly abandoned them, especially if they are teachers. The need for ideals is imperative if we are to live (and ultimately survive) as human beings in a civilized world, not as savages in a jungle.

I would like to quote yet another article, this time from the Saturday Sun, Toronto, Ontario, June 20, 1987, "Tactics outrage CUPE". It says: "The country's largest union threw its support behind the striking letter carriers and condemned the Tories for letting Canada Post hire strike breakers. 'Such brutal conduct is bad enough when resorted to by private employers'..." (stated in a telegram to Prime Minister B. Mulroney).

It seems unbelievable that hiring people who are willing to work is termed "brutal conduct"... When UWOSA chose CUPE in a bid to certify UWO support staff, their reason was that CUPE's philosophy most closely resembled their own. Does UWOSA not know and therefore not understand CUPE's philosophy, or are we to think that they do know but choose to ignore it? It is especially in times of conflict that the union's philosophy becomes blatantly obvious.

If CUPE increases its stronghold in our University, it is only CUPE who will benefit. The administration has nothing to gain from them and will lose out in the long run, but the support staff will always be caught in the middle.