Graduation Address

"The Role of the University" (25 October 1972). (UA Case 69, Box 2)

Mr. Chancellor, Votre Honneur, Mr. Premier, Mr. President, members of the graduating class, visiteurs distingués, Mesdames, messieurs, ladies and gentlemen. Une collation des grades or a Convocation such as this is the proudest day in the university year – because it recognizes and honours those who have now achieved what they once set out to do. That achievement is primarily a personal one, the result of individual determination and effort. But in most cases the support of family and friends has been important as well, and it is a matter for pride for them to share in the pleasure of recognition, as they have shared prior to now in the effort needed. And the occasion is also one of pride to those who have received honorary degrees – to have been chosen by this great University for special elevation within it, as is the case for Dr. Love, or for special admission to its membership, as is the case for Mrs. McCain, son honneur, Dr. Carman and for me. Nous qui sommes docteurs honoraries exprimons no rèmerciements au sènat de l’université pour cet honneur qui est très apprécié. Aux diplômé ainsi qu’à leurs familles et à leurs amis nous offrons nos très sincères felicitations.

That concludes, Mr. Chancellor, my first remark – a short but important one. My remaining remarks will be somewhat longer, but comfortably within the specified limit of twenty minutes, unless I am interrupted frequently by prolonged applause. In them I shall touch on recent changes in the University’s constituency and the appropriate response of the University to these changes.

The traditional university had a pretty limited constituency. It prepared for the Church, it prepared for higher levels of teaching, it prepared for medicine and, in addition, for those who could afford it, it provided an opportunity to become "college bred," a term which not infrequently was synonymous with a four-year loaf. From time to time other specialized programmed were introduced, preparing for Law, Engineering, Architecture, Dentistry and so on. These additions were urged by the practitioners concerned either to improve the quality of professional training or to enjoy the prestige associated with the University’s imprimatur. This latter consideration, of course, has been carried to ludicrous extremes in some universities with the recognition of such professional programmes as mortuary engineering and veterinary psychology. But, by and large, the traditional students group was a select group that deliberately withdrew from society for a few years – whether to read, to discuss, to study, or simply to drive dull care away – before returning to society to assume positions of privilege.

Some present will remember those nostalgic times, indeed some of the private colleges in the Eastern United States appear still to be living in them, but they have virtually vanished from the Canadian scene, as universities have become increasingly dependent upon public funds and, consequently, increasingly egalitarian. Attendance at university has become less the exception and more the rule, less of a privilege and more of a right. Thus, during the past twenty years, and until very recently, the university enrolments in Canada grew at an unprecedented rate, causing demands for staff and facilities that were often very difficult to satisfy. Understandably, by analogy to the British Empire, universities became known as the empires on which the concrete never sets. The enrolment has since leveled off and I shall return to that aspect of things presently but, before doing so, let me remind you of the magnitude of the increase.

In 1955 one Canadian in 210 was a full-time university student, whereas ten years later the corresponding figure was one in 95. Two years ago, in 1970, that figure was one in 69, representing a three-fold increase in the university participation rate within a decade and a half. How do we compare with the United States? Our university participation rate in 1970 was approximately the value for the United States in 1960. During the 1960’s, however, the American rate grew only at half the Canadian rate, so we have gained some ground in that respect. In 1906, incidentally, the figure for the U.S. was one in 70, for Canada it was one in 160, for the U.K. it was one in 850, and for India (you may be surprised to know) it was one in 450.

The dramatic increase in the percentage of young people attending university which occurred between 1955 and 1970 reflects in part the inexorable rise in Canada of the average age of leaving the educational system. This effect produces a growing demand for post-secondary education which is, if you will, an evolutionary trend and its effect is far from past. To this organic effect was added in the 1960’s an enhanced belief that university education led directly to high-paying jobs. Indeed, in some unexplained manner, a university education was thought to create high-paying jobs. The fallacy of this belief has been rudely exposed in the past two or three years as many young people who, a few years earlier, would have entered university on the strength of it are no longer doing so. Instead, some now choose programmes which provide specific training and which are offered by community and/or technical Colleges. In addition to that group, others who, two or three years ago, might have proceeded to or continued in University are now taking permanent jobs, are delaying university work for financial reasons, are exploring the world or are exploiting our unique system of unemployment insurance, which actually discourages attendance at universities and colleges.

As a result the rising university enrolment figures of the 1960’s have not only leveled off, in some cases they have actually dropped.

The natural reaction of many in the universities has been to be offended at this apparent loss in popularity. This feeling of hurt has been intensified by the financial embarrassment that arises from the fact that staff and facilities have been provided on the assumption that enrolments would increase. I don’t minimize this financial problem, but it is essentially a temporary one, and should be soluble through the many adjustments in programme and responsibility that are possible within a university. As to the drop in popularity, there is no hiding it and it is not entirely a cause for shame. Amongst other things it is evidence that, in the absence of other post-secondary alternatives, many young people, for whom advanced technical training would have been appropriate and by whom it would have been desired, entered university by default, encouraged by the sophism mentioned earlier that university education creates jobs. It is no cause for chagrin that this particular group of young people has taken advantage of the alternative that was tailor-made for them. It is also evidence that many have decided that they can get ahead faster without a university education, which may or may not imply a valid criticism of the University. It is also evidence that, for some, times are hard and many for that reason cannot afford to go to university. That is a cause for chagrin, but for all of us and not the universities alone. It is also evidence for a strong desire by many for a temporary life experience of an informal sort, which is more a question of life style than of university curriculum.

Thus, the reasons for the drop in popularity are complicated and not all are incriminating. But the net result is that we have a narrower constituency to deal with – which should itself be a cause for relief. Instead of attempting to be all things to all people, we can begin now to be some things to some people.

Instead of responding erratically to those who came to us for the wrong reasons we can begin now to respond consistently to those who represent our proper clientele. This response will not require a revolution within the university but it will require that our evolution take cognizance of the changes in our total environment – a subject which I shall pursue presently. But before doing so I should like to give you proof that even at its present stage of evolution the University can evoke in its students flashes of magnificent insight. This proof is taken from recent examination papers:
First, concerning prehistoric times: "The three great ages of humanity are the age of stone, the age of bronze, and the age of retirement. People in those times lived in taverns, which are the cradles of civilization. Later they lived in huts: they had no clothing, no shirts, only a hole to let the smoke escape."
Second, concerning the circulation of the blood: "William Harvey discovered that the blood goes down one leg and up the other."
Finally, concerning the census: "This is an operation which consists of going from house to house to increase the population."
Before that digression, I had stated that the evolution of the university curriculum must take cognizance of the changes in our total environment – not only our physical environment, but our human and spiritual environment as well. I stated that we must take cognizance of those changes – I did not say that we must adapt to them, although the term "adaptation to environment" might suggest that the environment always has the upper hand and that it will always call the tune.

Some of the changes that are taking place in our environment are good, and some are not. For example, to mention widely-different aspects, I should say that the increase in life expectancy is good, that the improvement in the technical means of communication is good, that the growing resistance to the acceptance of dogma is good. Conversely, I should say that the rising emphasis on material things is not good, that the growing trend toward impersonality is not good, that our use of the improving means of communication is often not good – and so on. The onus is on the individual to identify the good and to make the appropriate adaptation, but also to discern the not-good and to refuse to adapt, indeed, in those cases, to force the environment to adapt.

The ability to identify the good and to discern the not-good requires an understanding of the relation between man and his physical world, an understanding of the relation between man and man, and an appreciation of the relation between man and God. To assist intelligent young people to acquire these understandings and appreciations is the primary business of the University, and its curriculum and its methods of instruction must continuously evolve so as to serve that noble purpose. To be more specific than that on this occasion would be both inappropriate and uninteresting. For the sake of emphasis, however, may I paraphrase slightly what I have just said in connection with the role of the University – it is to assist intelligent young people to live with nature, to live with other, and to live with themselves.

In line with what I have been saying, and by way of slight further elaboration, may I now address a few words particularly to the members of the graduating class. As I have said, the environment is not always the independent variable. We are not short-necked animals reaching compulsively for higher and higher leaves until we discover that our descendants have become giraffes. Instead, we have the option of changing our diet. Thus, the current standard of values can be changed and the growing impersonality can be reversed, as many young people have already demonstrated. You have acquired the essential understandings and appreciations to an extent that was not possible before. The rest of us are counting on you to take the lead both in the adaptation to environment and in the adaptation of environment – for your own sakes, of course, for the sake of those not as fitted to act for themselves, and for the sake of those not yet in our midst.

Enfin, aux diplômés, je voudrais offrir encore mes felicitations, et à tous je voudrais exprimer mes rèmerciements pour votre accueil très cordial.