Valedictory Address

"Valedictory Address" (20 May 1977). (UA Case 68, Box 1).

Mr. Lieutenant Governor, Dr. Anderson, Members of the Board, Honored Guests, fellow students.

Well, here we are. We are all proud of what we have accomplished and well we should be. A degree from the University of New Brunswick is something to be proud of. The University offers a high quality of education in both the academic and social senses. What more can you ask? Well, a job, maybe. A political science lecture followed by a quiet discussion over a cup of coffee between a separatist from Chateauguay and a federalist from St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, would to me be the perfect source of a broad based education. And there can be no question that such an education is available at UNB. But, as is usual, things could be better. Even the best of universities can use constructive criticism, and, just like students, universities, I would hope, can learn from their mistakes and from the-criticism of others. I would like to think that at this university we have the ability to make a good thing better.

One of the things which concerns me most about the education offered at this institution is the quality of the education itself. When we insist in getting involved in an attempt to increase the quantity of education an institution offers, we are bound to affect the quality of the existing programs. In a period of decreasing enrollments, or at best of stabilized enrollments, it would seem unwise to indulge in some new, and perhaps speculative, programs when existing, high demand programs cannot be adequately provided for. At the moment, many of our more high demand programs, including Business Administration, Law and Engineering suffer badly because the university cannot afford to pay competitive salaries to top professors. Consequently, these people are attracted to private business, and the quality of our education suffers. Without excellent professors, it is virtually impossible to offer the educational program which we would like to offer.

But to be fair to the University, the fact that competitive salaries-cannot always be offered is not always the fault of the University. When government funding increases by the minuscule amount it did this year, for the University of New Brunswick, we have to be proud of the job that has been done in meeting the crisis. But the same cannot be said of the government. Although university funding decisions are hard ones for government officials to make, it is necessary to understand the importance of a properly funded university program. University funding is not an expense - it is an investment in the future of our province. By scrimping on university funding now, a government creates an obvious short term difficulty for the university but creates a less obvious long term problem for the province itself. With university graduates who do not receive the benefit of the best possible educational background, the province will continue to suffer and the problem will perpetuate itself in future years. But, by funding universities as broadly as is possible, the province benefits itself immediately and the benefit is then in turn compounded through the years. A good education is something you cannot take away, just as a missed opportunity cannot later be overcome.

So, although the university must be very cautious with this quality versus quantity trade off, the province must be prepared to assist the university in any way possible to improve our education, and thus improve our province.

Another aspect of university life with which I feel some concern is the athletics policy of our university. As a one-time pseudo-athlete on this campus, I feel particularly close to the struggling condition of many of our varsity programs, and I am particularly upset with the threatened demise of one or more of our varsity sports. It seems to me to be one of the cornerstones of any energetic and progressive university to have associated with it a viable, although not necessarily winning, varsity athletic program. It seems silly to me that a university which prides itself on the excellence of its physical education and recreation programs can even consider elimination of a sport or sports from its program. I would think the two would be of necessity inseparably intertwined. It seems to me that just the opposite of the program cutbacks suggested is necessary. To attract students, to create a healthy university spirit, it would seem a viable athletic program would be an asset, not a detriment. As it stands now, it would appear the people in a position to make our programs more competitive are satisfied with our less than attractive position. Please don't misunderstand me. I feel that for the time and effort, as well as money, our university invests in athletics and related expenses we have very good results. Many of our women's programs, including field hockey, volleyball, swimming and basketball are programs of which we can all be proud. Never the less, some of our high profile sports (so called) are suffering from a lack of any profile at all. Volleyball and swimming are fairly successful men's programs, but when was the last time our hockey or basketball programs stirred anyone out of their slumbers? Although our football program has been relatively successful, given the budgetary constraints and other problems it faces, it could be a far better program with a more aggressive approach by those in charge. A more aggressive approach would attract more fans, and generate more income and probably pay for the increased expenditures. What is crazier than having this beautiful building and seeing our hockey team attract crowds where rather than introduce the starting lineups, it saves time to merely send the players up into the stands to introduce themselves personally?

If we plan to run a competitive program, and stress competitive as opposed to winning program, we've got to be more creative and more aggressive in our approach to athletics. Otherwise, our money is better spent by investing in shares in Bricklin (Canada). There is no question in my mind that an attractive athletic program makes a university more attractive to prospective students, and would also help immeasurably a university improve its own self--image.

Hopefully, an improved varsity program would eventually lead to an improved intramural program, which could benefit even more students.
Another problem which concerns this university directly and concerns me personally is the recent decision of the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission to recommend a unilingual French law school for the University of Moncton. This recommendation, made contrary to the opinions exposed by the New Brunswick Barristers Society, the UNB Law Students Society, and the Law Faculty Council of UNB, to name a few, to me shows a basic failure to distinguish between what is politically expedient and what is practically reasonable and correct. The idea of two unilingual law schools in the province the size of New Brunswick, which struggles to adequately finance one law school at the moment, is both unwise and ill-advised. A truly bilingual law school is to be much preferred to two unilingual law schools, simply from the saving of duplication of services and consistency of instruction, if not for many other more complex reasons. At a time in Canada's history when language problems are creating so much controversy, it appears to me to be a much more reasonable solution to institute an integrated bilingual program, operating from one location, with improved facilities and library for all students, rather than in fewer and basically identical programs operating independently of one another in two separate locations. The public of New Brunswick could be much better served by a law school serving both language groups from a common facility, than from two separate facilities. And I would also hope that this is the overriding concern of the politicians who will make the final decision – the overall benefit to the public of New Brunswick, not the politics of the decision-making process. Are you listening, Mr. Hatfield?

The degree we receive today to me bears more significance than that of a meal ticket to happiness. Many of us see our degree as an opportunity to escape the fetters of the classroom and the late night essay into the world of big cars and little pay checks. But in my mind there is associated with our entry into the real world a less obvious and maybe even more important obligation than many of us realize. This obligation is our obligation to each other and to the rest of society - we have an obligation to use our knowledge and our energy to improve the lot of us all. This is an obligation we take on, not as a result of the job we get, if we're lucky enough to get a job, or the place we live, but as a result of the fact that we as university graduates have a unique and important asset we must share - our creativity. By this I don't mean doing our job to the best of our ability, and that type of thing, which I hope we all believe, but instead I mean a responsibility we all share to use our creativity to build and benefit our society. After all we got a high price commodity, our education, at a bargain basement price and that alone gives us a responsibility to put more back into society than we take out. You may not have felt that way when you paid your fees last term, but hopefully you feel that way now. If this feeling were somewhat more prevalent. than it presently is, not only amongst university graduates, but society in general, life would be more pleasant and a fuller life for us all.

By doing something creative I mean striving to do something for the sheer joy of doing something because it's fun and it's constructive, without worrying about what you can get out of it. Coach a minor baseball team, or become involved in the local historical society, or help your local community concert group. You can pick any area you choose - but try and do something to benefit somebody else, and you will be fulfilling your obligation as a university graduate.

As a university graduate, we have both a unique opportunity and a unique responsibility to do this type of thing, to improve our collective good with us returning, into the system, the benefits our education has given to us we'll all find that our children thank us for improving their life, just as we must in turn thank our parents for making our life better than that they had.

Thank you for your attention, and good day.