Leonie Morris' diatribe in last week's 'Salient' cannot pass without comment. Before looking at aspects of her letter in detail, I would like to make some general observations germane to a discussion of August Council's Women's Commission.

Firstly, the continuation of a Women's Commission was felt desirable by the majority of delegates and observers attending, of whom, I may add, Leonie Morris was not one (her priorities lying elsewhere, it would seem.) I should also like to remind Leonie that although entitled to her opinions, it would only be fair if she had pointed out that Vic's SRC actually endorsed subsequent Women's Commissions, despite opposition from the "old guard." As an elected officer of SRC, Leonie is responsible for executing [unclear: tudent] policy in a democratic fashion not [unclear: bitrarily] imposing her own views. Remember sister, you are representing Students not yourself.

Women's Commission arose from a perceived need by out numbered and subordinated women delegates at May Council, who felt that women's issues were not being treated with urgency or sufficient seriousness by what was fundamentally a male power elite within NZUSA. The Commission was therefore designed to politicise women students students, as well as giving NZUSA policy on women some "sting." In both areas success was achieved. August Council had proportionately more women delegates than ever, interest by women students was at an all-time high, and important policy clarifications were made.

No one denies that ". . . sexual discrimination is an issue which concerns all students. . . ", the statement is obviously true. Yet what is glossed over is that sexual discrimination is loaded more against the female than the male, that women are denied equal rights and opportunities on the basis of their sex. Therefore women have a specific set of grievances. We need the opportunity to air them freely, to develop our ideas and further our cause without the unnecessary intrusion of men who are often dominating and unable to fully understand the issues involved.

The fact that sexual discrimination is". . . an integral part of other social problems. . ." is no prohibition on separate discussion and decision-making on issues related to women's oppression. For from it! One does not amalgamate all causes simply because they can be related to a wider social context. Organisations such as Carp, Hart, Tenants' Union are all dealing in their own Limited little way with varying aspects of capitalism's injustice. A separate commission therefore focuses attention on issues which have tended to be ignored. It does not undermine any movement seeking to place the issues in a more general social context. The concepts are compatible and complementary, not opposed as Leonie seems to be suggesting.

Point (c) can only be described as incomprehensible. Virginia is alleged to be speaking "nonsense" in saying that NZUSA's policy was "rationalised" by Women's Commission. According to my rather limited understanding of the English language (although not as limited as some, it would seem,) "rationalisation" implies the act of making something intelligible, consistent, or coherent. This has nothing to do with Changing policy, although Leonie seems to draw no semantic distinction in equating the two. The simple fact is that prior to Women's Commission. NZUSA policy on women was ambiguous and contradictory, whereas most constituent delegates actually had policy directives which were comprehensive and unequivocal. This Is why almost all NZUSA policy was redrafted and expanded, strictly in accordance with majority constituent policy, of course. Policy was clarified, or rationalised if you like.

It seems that Victoria students made a somewhat regrettable choice in the area of Women's Rights Officer. It is to be hoped that If she continues to utter such "nonsense" in the future, appropriate action will be taken. For the time being, I can only say "Struggle on sister, you've got a long way to go."