15
           TRAINING LEADERS:  CAN PHILOSOPHY HELP?

                              

                      Paul Chamberlain
       Assistant Professor, Trinity Western University
                              
                        Introduction

     "But we already have too many leaders!  That's the

problem today.  Everyone wants to lead.  No one is willing

to follow!"  I can still remember the student fervently

denouncing my encouragement to my students to aspire to

positions of leadership.  It was after a class in which I

had, quite innocently, recommended a book calling people to

prepare for leadership.  He was serious.  There was no

denying that.  But was he right, I wondered.  I have since

concluded, for reasons which I will set out momentarily,

that he was not.  In fact, in recent years I have become

convinced that a leadership void exists in contemporary

society.  We don't have too many leaders, at least not ones

who are well prepared and competent to lead.  But if that

was true, another very natural question arose in my mind.

What, if anything, was I, as an instructor of philosophy,

doing to fill this leadership void?  What should I be

contributing?

     I have never doubted that philosophy, as a discipline,

has great practical value in a variety of ways.  Of course,

not everyone sees it that way.  In fact, at the start of

each new academic year I am faced with a new group of

freshman students, some of  whom think philosophy is either

too hard to get much out of or too irrelevant and

uninteresting to try.  I have come to regard as my first

task the dispelling of  these notions.  They have never been

very difficult to put aside but the reasons they exist and

the ways to beat them off are subjects for another day.

     But what about the training of leaders.  Can philosophy

help here?  I believe it can and my purpose here is to show

how this discipline can contribute to this very important

task which universities have been called upon to perform.

Let  me say at the outset that I am acutely aware that

familiarity really does breed contempt and the topic of

leadership is one which often generates responses like, “Not

that again!” (usually said with eyes rolling).

     Recently however, two important items came to my

attention.  Together they convinced me that we are nowhere

near the finish line in the job of developing leaders.  If

anything, we ought to redouble our efforts with new and

fresh approaches.  The first item was the report of an

independent Commission of  Inquiry on Canadian University

Education.  The Commission’s mandate was to examine the

ability of university education to adapt rapidly to the

needs of a nation “that is and will continue to be,” wrote

the Commissioners, “increasingly dependent on the essential

national resource of well-educated citizens.”  [1]  This is

written in reference to Canada but I am assuming that it is

equally true of all western nations.

     One statement in the report caught my eye.  It read:

SThere is universal agreement. . .that universities have a

critical role to play in developing the leaders. .

.necessary to compete in the modern economy.”  The point we

ought not to miss here is that society is looking to the

universities, among other places, to train its leaders.

There is an expectation that we are engaged in this process.

Now if that is even partially true, then we in Christian

universities have an opportunity to make a profound

difference in our society by not only training these leaders

but also equipping them with genuinely  Christian minds in

the process.  There is a void.  We could fill it.

     The second item was a statement in a study by Evers and

Rush  in 1986 on Making the Match Between University

Graduates and Corporate Employers. [2]  This study drew

attention to the skills employers found missing among

university graduates.  Among the three most important was

leadership/influence.

     These studies indicate that the following three

statements are true:



     1) The people of our society (specifically employers)

are looking for leaders

     2) They are looking, at least in part, to the

university to  provide them

     3) They are not satisfied with the quality of leaders

they are getting from their universities.



     Clearly we in higher education need to take a hard look

at what we are really accomplishing in this area.  This

article represents a call to Christian universities and

colleges everywhere to agree together to reexamine our

“leader-producing” strategies.  What concrete steps are we

taking?  Are they working?  Do we even know their success

rate?  Have we thought about what we could do differently?

     It is one thing, however, for a university to agree

that it should train leaders.  It is quite another to see it

happen.  As I thought about this, it struck me that

universities, as such, really don’t do anything.  Rather,

their departments do.  A university is really only the sum

of all its departments.  This means, of course, that if a

university is to take seriously the job of training leaders

for society, then each of  its departments will need to as

well.  If they don’t, the university’s stated commitment to

it will be little more than a public relations gimmick.

Leadership development will not occur.

     It is important therefore, in my view, for  faculty

members in each discipline in the Christian Liberal Arts

University (and all other institutions of higher learning

for that matter) at some point, to articulate specific ways

in which their disciplines contribute to the task of

training leaders.  My intention here is to do just that for

my own discipline, philosophy, and I would call on faculty

members from other disciplines to do the same.  Let me say

up front that I make no pretense of “having arrived,” in

this project.  I welcome suggestions as to how we, in

philosophy, could do better.

     Be that as it may, I will accomplish my task first by

setting out a brief statement of what philosophy is and

does.  Secondly, a brief definition of leadership will be

given.  Last, I will state a few specific abilities any

competent leader has and show how training in philosophy, as

I have set it out, can produce and strengthen these

abilities.



Philosophy’s Task

     How does one respond to the question, “So what is

philosophy?  And, by the way, what do you philosophers do?”

These are more common questions than one might think.  They

come from freshman philosophy students as well as from

members of the general public who catch wind that some of us

are teaching in this area.  If we’re honest we’ll admit that

for all the reading, writing, and teaching we’ve done in

philosophy,  many of us still struggle with offering a

simple explanation of what it is and does, at least in a way

that is helpful to a non-philosopher.

     In my view, there is no better way to begin such an

explanation than by emphasizing that philosophy first and

foremost, works with ideas and arguments.  It teaches

students the science of clear, precise, and critical

thinking.  They are taught to analyze arguments and systems

of thought and to distinguish valid from invalid reasoning.

This includes an examination of presuppositions as well as

how ideas relate to one another.  Some ideas are

incompatible with others.  Some presuppose other ideas while

still others follow from  previous concepts.  The ability to

identify these relationships is a significant part of what

students ought to gain from philosophical training.

     Philosophy then proceeds to apply these skills to

various issues, be they ethical, political, legal,

religious, scientific or personal (to name a few).  The goal

is always to identify fundamental issues needing to be

addressed, to articulate the various viewpoints held on any

issue, to understand and evaluate the main arguments for and

against each view, and finally to search out unstated

assumptions behind various arguments.  More could be said

but it seems to me that this explanation captures the

essence of the discipline.



The Leader’s Task

     Possibly the most painfully obvious fact about

leadership is that there is no agreed-upon definition of it.

A wide range of ideas exists on what it is and even more on

what good leadership is.  I am convinced, however, that

there is a basic common understanding of the term if for no

other reason than that we can and do discuss it with others

and when we do, real communication occurs.  We understand

each other.  This could not happen without some conceptual

common ground.

     Because my purpose here does not require a precise and

detailed definition of leadership, I will simply define the

leader’s task in a way that, I hope, catches this common

ground.  In my view, the definition offered by Donald Page

catches the essence of  leadership.  He writes that

leadership consists in  motivating and mobilizing others to

accomplish a task. [3]  This appears to be correct.  Whether

we are thinking of Dwight Eisenhower’s leadership in the D-

Day invasion, an Academic Dean’s leadership in a university,

or a parent’s leadership role in the home, the leader must

motivate and mobilize others to accomplish a task, or series

of tasks.   If they fail here, we properly say they failed

as a leader.  I hasten to add that this does not necessarily

mean it was the leader’s fault.  It may be that the group

they were given to lead was especially unruly or incapable

of being led for some other reason.  The fact remains,

however, that the leader was unable to lead.

     To this basic definition I would add (and here is where

some disagreement could reasonably exist) that good

leadership requires that the tasks which the leader moves

others to perform be beneficial to others.  I say some

disagreement may exist here because it is possible that some

may regard the leadership of an Adolph Hitler or Joseph

Stalin to be good in the sense that these leaders were

effective, successful in accomplishing their goals.  This is

the nonmoral use of the term “good,” and the disagreement at

this point is merely semantical.  In my opinion, it doesn’t

really matter which meaning one has in mind so long as it is

made clear for communication purposes.  When describing the

leadership of individuals like Hitler and Stalin, I prefer

to use terms such as “clever,” or “effective,” or

“successful,” and to reserve “good” for leadership which

moves others to accomplish tasks which are beneficial to

others.



            Philosophy’s Role in Training Leaders

     But what part does philosophy play in all of this?

Should someone be better able to motivate and mobilize

others to accomplish tasks because of training in

philosophy?  If not, we had better quit talking about

philosophy’s role in leadership training.  There is no

danger of that, however, at least not in my opinion.  I

believe philosophy is invaluable here. In fact, it is

designed to carry out certain apsects of leadership training

in a way that no other discipline is.  I know of no better

way to show this than to note a few qualities and abilities

of a good leader and then to show how training in philosophy

can foster these.



                Which Tasks Should I Pursue?



     “Which tasks should I pursue when I cannot pursue all

that I would like to?”  Every person who has been a leader

will recognize this dilemma.  There are more tasks vying to

be done than there is time, or money, or some other

necessary resource.  When this happens, the leader (and not

someone else) must evaluate.  Which tasks should I push

forward on?  Remember, it's always a trade-off.  Performing

one means not performing others.  Which ones must, of

necessity, be left aside?  Once the choices are made, the

leader must be able to provide reasons for these choices,

sometimes showing the relative value of various tasks.  In

addition, the leader must be able to show how smaller tasks

relate to large, overriding goals.

     For example, should a Christian leader with strong pro-

life convictions mobilize others to support an abortion bill

such as Bill C-43 even though it did not go far enough to

satisfy the requirements of a high view of human life which

he or she believes we ought to advocate?  [4] Supporting it

and working for its passage would mean detracting resources

from other worthy causes.  If we should, what are the risks

involved?  If not, what will be lost by not supporting it

and what is the alternative?  How will the decision fit into

the long range goal of the protection of the unborn?   If

leaders are not prepared for these kinds of decisions, they

will fail as leaders.

     But how are they to make these decisions?  How is

anyone to make them?  In short, they must be able to grasp

the alternatives and know what could be said for and against

each.  To put it another way, they must be skilled at

identifying issues and alternative views.  They then must be

able to evaluate the arguments for and against each view.

Is what is presented as an argument really an argument or

does it merely sound like one?  If it is, then is it valid

or invalid?  If invalid, it does not constitute a genuine

reason at all and the leader must know this.

     But where, in an average university experience does a

person receive training and experience in these skills?  It

is true that in a general sense all of university is

intended to improve these skills.  A student cannot

participate in classes, take notes, do research, and join in

the social activities of the university without exercising

and absorbing, almost through osmosis, some increased

ability here.  But this is unorganized, hit and miss.  What

students need are courses actually designed to improve these

abilities in a systematic way.  In philosophy, they find

precisely these kinds of courses.  Regardless of which

course in philosophy students take, they will read articles

and engage in discussion on various topics.  They will then

be taught to identify issues, various viewpoints on those

issues, arguments both for and against these views, and

underlying assumptions along the way.  This is not something

“caught” or absorbed in the process of doing other things.

This is the stuff of philosophy.  These are the skills the

Professor is attempting to teach his or her students.  In

addition, philosophy  offers courses in Logic which are

designed precisely to teach students to construct sound

arguments and to identify both sound and unsound ones.

Throughout the semester, experience and skill is gained in

doing this.

     How often have we prematurely bolted to a decision on

some contentious issue?  “Of course it’s wrong!” or “How

could any rational person believe that?!”  And how often

have we later had to confess that if we had only known the

issue better, or had heard the opposing views articulated

properly and the reasons for them, we would have realized

that our first impulse was not justified.  It may even have

been dead wrong.  In my opinion, philosophy has a crucial

role to play in preparing leaders to avoid this trap.

Practice makes perfect, and leaders can gain skill in this

process.

                How Can I Convince Followers?



     We all know, however that there is more to being a

leader than determining the issues to be pursued.  As any

leader quickly learns, you cannot motivate anyone to do

anything without first convincing them of the value of your

cause.  Simply put, if they don’t believe in your project,

they will not get excited about pursuing it.

     So how do we do it?  To be honest I must concede up

front that I know of no way guaranteed to produce a group of

convinced followers.  People and circumstances are too

different.  Personalities clash.  Some of our would-be

followers arrive with a deep seated bias against our

particular cause.  But while there may be no sufficient

cause of this group, there are certain necessary causes,

things which are required if we are to convince followers at

all.

     First, a leader must be respected by others as a person

of high moral standard.  However much society seems to

change in its moral perspectives, people still want leaders

whom they regard, in their own minds, as morally sound.  If

a leader is viewed as immoral, whatever else he may have, he

will not have the respect of his followers.  To be

respected, a leader must act (and be seen to act) on

principle rather than expedience.  He or she must do what is

good because it is good.  The lack of such leaders is, in my

view, partly to blame for the abundant cynicism directed

toward today’s leaders in North America.

     Can philosophy help?  As I pondered this question, it

occurred to me that philosophy plays a particularly

significant role here.  At Trinity Western University as at

most universities, we have a course in Ethical Theory (we

call ours ‘Moral philosophy’) and courses in Ethical Issues

(sometimes called ‘Applied Ethics').  These courses are

intended, in part, to awaken students’ consciousness to the

importance of consistently acting on such principles as

justice, love and honesty.  This is character development

and it is attempted by showing that principles like these

are front and center in any ethical discussion.  They often,

in fact, make the difference between good and evil.  What is

more, God is primarily concerned with a person’s character.

     Here is where the teacher can make an enormous

difference.  A class in ethics may in some cases be nothing

more than an exercise in learning various approaches to

ethical problem solving.  But it can be much more.  A

teacher can spur students on to internalize the process, to

see the importance of acting on moral principles.  He or she

can help students evaluate the various ethical approaches

and to “buy into” one for themselves.  In other words, the

teacher can lead students to become morally informed and

sensitive, to see the importance of living morally sound

lives.  Modeling the moral life and demonstrating an

attitude of admiration for morally sound choices is

especially critical here.  More could be said but clearly a

leader must be respected if he or she ever hopes to convince

followers.

     A second requirement for convincing followers is the

ability to take tough stands on tough issues.  Leaders who

fail here are seen as wafflers not worth following.  “Why

should we follow him?  He doesn’t know where he is going

either?” will be the cry.  Issues may be tough for more than

one reason.  For some, it is unclear what the right position

is.  After mulling over all the data we have at our

disposal, strong reasons remain for more than one view.  It

simply is not obvious what the principled leader (or even an

ideal observer) would do.  Other issues are tough because

they involve offending people around us.  We know that if we

decide as we ought to, some around us, maybe even our

friends, will be surprised and disappointed.  In fact, we

probably have friends or acquaintances on both sides of the

issue so either decision risks offending someone.  The above

two difficulties are not always isolated.  They are often

found in the same issue.  Because the right decision is

unclear, not only are you (and the ideal observer) having

difficulty with it, but your friends and acquaintances are

too and some of them are deciding differently from you and

from each other.

     Last year I was elected a School Trustee in my

community.  Since that time there has been a steady stream

of decisions needing to be researched and voted on.  Some

are mundane and relatively easy.  Hence they find wide

agreement on the board and in the community.  Should we

authorize the Superintendent of Schools to grant year-end

transfers of teachers to different schools or positions?  In

most cases, yes.  Why not?

     Other decisions, however, are tough because they

encounter the very difficulties mentioned above.  Should we

allow secondary school students to smoke in designated

“smoke holes” on school grounds?  As I write, this issue is

being debated in our school district and I have been called

upon to be an active participant in this debate.  "If we do

not provide the smoking areas," argues one faction,

"students will smoke anyway, just off the school grounds,

causing policing, littering and safety problems in the

neighboring community.   This will put students out of

control and cause a nightmare for principals trying to

oversee their student bodies."  For this reason, principals

are among the key advocates of smoking areas.  Denying them

to students will not win the war on smoking anyway, goes the

argument, and all we will do is push high risk students

further from school.  Would it not be better to let the

principals handle it in their own way and use education and

peer pressure rather than legislation as a means to

discourage students from smoking?

     On the other side is the “But-how-could-we?” crowd.

"Surely smoking is a leading cause of lung cancer!" they

exclaim.  "Should we not declare in law our opposition to it

in the school district?  Should we not make it as

inconvenient as possible for students who want to smoke and

then deal with enforcement, safety, and littering problems

as separate issues?  Furthermore, are we willing to

consistently apply the previous reasoning that since they

will smoke anyway, we ought to provide them a place to do it

so we can control it?  Students also engage in drug abuse,

stealing, sex and assault of younger children.  Should we

provide a place for these too?"  they ask rhetorically.

Other points have been made but these are some of the oft-

heard arguments.

     I have had conversations with thoughtful people who,

like me, believe smoking is extremely inadvisable for young

people.  Some of these conversations have been with friends

of mine.  They have argued forcefully giving me arguments,

examples, and facts. Unfortunately for me however, they have

been about evenly divided in their opinions on the smoke

holes.   Some find one set of arguments convincing while

others find the other set more compelling.  So here we have

it; an issue in which the right decision is not clear and on

which any decision is bound to offend friends and

acquaintances.  But whatever the difficulties may be, I and

six other trustees (each of whom enjoys these kinds of

decisions about as much as I) will make a decision sometime

this year.  We will have no choice.

     Beyond this however, there is yet one more wrench that

is sometimes thrown into a tough decision making it even

tougher.   How often have we heard leaders wring their hands

and moan, “How can I make this decision with these facts?  I

need more information!”  They probably do, and in a perfect

world they would likely have it or at least be able to send

an aide for it.  One of the hard facts of this world,

however, is that sometimes needed information is

unavailable.  A decision must be made without it. This is

your worst nightmare.

     Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to opt out at this

point?  Leave it to someone else.  In fact, that is

precisely what others around you are doing and the one they

are leaving it to is you, their leader.  That’s why we hear

expressions like, “I’m glad it’s you and not me.”  The

point, of course, is that you, the leader, are the one

called upon to make the tough decision even as you watch

others run for cover.

          What leaders need more than anything else in

situations such as these is the ability to formulate and

evaluate arguments for the various viewpoints available to

them.  As mentioned earlier, they must recognize when what

they have is really an argument and when it merely goes by

the name.  Sometimes emotional pleas and restatements of the

main point are cloaked to appear as new arguments.  They are

not and the leader must spot this quickly.  He or she must

also recognize when the reasons presented in favor of a

particular viewpoint are valid and thus should be considered

at all.  Invalid reasons are really no reasons at all.

Finally, the leader must weigh the comparative worth of

opposing reasons.  Sometimes good reasons have to be

overruled because better ones oppose them.  Doing this

requires experience in the art of working with ideas and

arguments.

     Here is where the discipline of philosophy can play an

immensely helpful role.  It  is devoted to providing

instruction and experience doing precisely these activities.

One of the first tasks of a Logic instructor is to teach

students what an argument is.  Contrary to popular belief,

not everyone knows this intuitively. It’s only when we do,

however, that we are able to identify arguments when they

appear and distinguish them from restatements, emotional

pleas, examples, and other things which are often called

arguments.

     Beyond this, Logic teaches the difference between a

sound argument, i.e., one having true premises and being

valid, and takes students through some of the more common

fallacies.  When facing a tough issue on which a stand must

be taken, leaders must have a working knowledge of these

skills.

     I continue to hope that the more philosophy one takes,

the more experienced he or she will be at sorting through

any issue so as to take an informed stand.  I am convinced

that part of leadership involves taking the lead in

analyzing and resolving issues such as the ones mentioned

above.

     But will any of this help students actually be willing

to take a stand on tough issues?  Could any discipline bring

this about?  Maybe we are asking too much of philosophy? In

one sense we probably are.  I do not see how the content of

philosophy (or of any other discipline, for that matter)

however hard it is studied, can, by itself, bring about any

such willingness.  Having said that, however, I must add

that if there is any discipline which provides an

extraordinarily good framework for a teacher to use to help

build this character quality into his or her students, it is

philosophy.  Let me explain with my own experience.

     I have for a number of years now required every student

to give an in-class presentation on an assigned reading, a

piece of philosophy.  There is always an issue at stake, a

viewpoint put forward along with supporting arguments.  The

student is required to decipher all of this and make it

clear to the class.  He or she also must evaluate the

article.  This entails adopting a viewpoint and defending it

in some way.  Both I and the rest of the class then ask

questions of the presenter.

     As you might imagine, the toughest part of any

presentation is taking a stand.  To my persistent, “but what

do you think?” have come the most creative answers the human

mind  is capable of producing.  Here is a typical exchange:

     PC: “Now that we know what the author’s argument is

here, what is your view on it?  Do

            you agree or disagree with him?"

     Student: “Well, in here he says that. . .”

     PC: “Yes, I know what he says but what do you think?”

     Student: “Well, in class we said that. . .”

     PC: “Yes, I recall that as well.  Do you have an

opinion on the matter?”

     Student: “Uh, yes!  My opinion.”  Well, er, uh.  What

can I say to a philosopher who

            knows so much more than I do?"

     PC:  “How humble of you.  Actually your opinion can be

very valuable.  Philosophers  are  only human like you.

They have their own assumptions and biases and they, too,

are  fallible.  They can make mistakes.  But back to your

opinion. . ."

     Student: “Uh, yes, my opinion. . .

     And so it goes.   I have occasionally drawn my

students' attention to the difficulty they are having

adopting a view for public intake.  By that time I am only

stating the obvious but I take the opportunity to remind

them of the times we all have derided public leaders for not

taking decisive decisions in public.  I point out that if

it’s hard in the classroom before thirty peers, it is harder

before a provincial, state, or national audience.

     Having said all that, I am happy to say that students

can and do learn to formulate their opinions along with

reasons for them.  They also learn to state them before

their peers, some of whom will disagree with them.  For this

to happen, however, students must feel like they can

disagree with one another in a cool, unintimidating fashion

as part of the learning process.  It is my job, as

instructor, to provide that nonthreatening atmosphere.

     One last necessary requirement for convincing followers

deserves mention and that is the ability to persuade others,

through writing or speaking, of the value of one’s project.

The point here is simply that if our goal is to convince

followers of the value of our cause, then we must be able to

make the case for it. This requirement is so obvious and

basic that we may be tempted to overlook it but we dare not.

All leaders should ask themselves, “Can I, as a leader,

state publicly (whether in small gatherings or large) why

anyone ought to follow me in this particular project?”

Could I do so on paper, if necessary?  Great personal and

moral characteristics are not sufficient.  People need to be

convinced in their own minds that your cause is worthy of

their devotion.  This requires that the leader articulate

the cause clearly and then construct sound arguments for

pursuing it.  Further, he or she must also be able to state

them in a way that is appealing to the general public.

     On this point, philosophy has a particularly powerful

role to play.  I have already referred to courses in logic

which specifically teach the science of constructing sound

arguments and spotting fallacies.  In addition, all

philosophy courses require students to read and understand

argumentative articles, thus gaining experience seeing how

arguments are built.  In-class lectures and discussion are

intended to fine tune this skill by working through some of

these arguments.  I have also referred to the in-class

presentations which are required in some philosophy courses

(and in all of mine).  Here students go beyond watching

others construct arguments and begin to build their own, and

to articulate them to their peers who then question them.

     Beyond this, all students write research essays which

consist of learning an issue well, stating a thesis they

will argue for, defining necessary terms, showing the

relevance of their thesis to other things in the world,

laying out positive arguments for it, and finally responding

to objections against it.  Furthermore, in approximately

half of all philosophy classes at Trinity Western

University, students are given opportunity to engage in a

debate with another student.  This involves clarifying a

specific resolution to be debated, again defining relevant

terms, and arguing as forcefully as possible for a position.

The opposing position must, of course, be understood and

rebutted.  The goal in all of these exercises is to develop

argumentative and communication skills, mental agility and

stage confidence so students can articulate and convince

others of the merits of their views.

                         Conclusions

     In essence, I’ve been suggesting answers to the

question, “How does philosophy help train leaders?”  I have

not tried to give a complete list of every possible way.

That would entail a listing of every philosophy course along

with the specific contributions it could make.  That  is not

necessary nor would it make interesting reading.  I have

tried to show how the thrust of philosophical training

wherever it is taken, can help produce leaders.

     The value of considering this contribution is surely

that it enables those of us who teach in this discipline to

become more proactive, to set up strategies which will use

the potential of our discipline to develop the leadership

abilities of our students.  I find that profoundly

encouraging.  It is even more inspiring to know that

philosophy is only one of many disciplines, all of which

have their own inherent capacities for training our students

to be leaders.  That is why I earlier called on instructors

in other disciplines to write similar articles.  One of the

most effective ways of following Christ’s command to be “the

salt of the earth,” is to train young leaders with

thoroughly Christian minds to fill the leadership void that

presently exists in our world.



                         NOTES


1.   Commission of Inquiry on Canadian university education.
     Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian
     University Education.  Ottawa:  Association of
     Universities and Colleges of Canada, 1991.

2.   Evers, Frederick, T. & Rush, James C.  Making the
     Match: Canada's University Graduates and Corporate
     Employers.  Corporate-Higher Education Forum, Montreal,
     1986.

3.        Page, Donald.  Teaching Leadership Through the
     Curriculum of Trinity Western University. An internal
     memorandum at TWU, January, 1993, p. 11.

4.        Bill C-43 was an abortion bill before the Canadian
House of Commons in 1990 which was more protective of the
unborn than the existing laws of the time but allowed enough
exceptions that many abortions would still occur.  It was
eventually passed by the House of  Commons but later vetoed
by the Senate, an appointed body.