Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2015, by the Victoria University of Wellington Library
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line, except in the case of those words that break over a page.
Some keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Collection scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
In order to make new content available faster this work has been uploaded but does not have comprehensive name authority mark up for sub-works and corresponding authors. We will endeavour to add this mark up as soon as possible.
Grant that the typical New Zealander is a myth, a mere figment of a statistician's imagination. Yet precisely because of the lack of human extremes in this country a large number of people are remarkably close to this fictional average. Some description of the "typical" New Zealander is therefore likely to give a fairly accurate picture of our way of life and our values. And it at once becomes clear that the biased and uninformed criticism of overseas visitors may err on the side of politeness rather than frankness.
New Zealanders are first and last, totally and completely, bourgeois. Even by Australian standards, practically every pakeha would be grouped as "middle class." Most of our essential characteristics spring from this fact. First, a negative puritanism. Secondly, an equalitarianism that merges into worship of mediocrity. Thirdly, a complete lack of imagination.
The average New Zealander is a puritan by origin, upbringing and instinct. Mentally, he remains in the suburbs of a provincial town in Victorian England. This puritanism, unlike that of America, is negative, for if there are two things most of us shun like the plague, they are enthusiasm and general principles. They terrify us.
We are glum and apathetic in our pleasures, amusements and vices alike—in the last category gambling comes far ahead of the rest of the field. We are determinedly serious, and distrust gaiety as a sign of instability and even effeminacy. Spontaneous public singing is an objectionable foreign habit, and there is some pride that the New Zealanders in the First World War were known as the "Silent Division."
In practice the material is valued far above the spiritual. Religion means churchgoing and a mild benevolent humanitarianism. Ethics are of habit only, their unique sanction the opinion of our fellows. Theology is an even greater loss than philosophy. Anything bordering on mysticism is upsetting and slightly disgusting, although potty fashions like spiritualism are socially popular among women. But mysticism proper is one of the many things that are "UnBritish," and being alien must necessarily be inferior and a legitimate subject for sneers or the pity that surpaaseth misunderstanding. Discussion of the fundamentals of reality, although occasionally indulged in by less responsible sections of the younger generation, is taboo except in moments of deep crisis, when a few solemn parrotted cliches are permissible.
The New Zealand bourgeois is a fanatic leveller, truly believing in economic as well as political democracy. His programme may be summed up as a fair deal (materially) for everyone. No one must be allowed to have anything that everyone else has not a chance of getting. Consistently he is usually
The vaunted New Zealand tolerance does not exist; toleration extends only to a set circle of beliefs—what John Smith or his neighbour accept.
In everyday life and its crises the New Zealander is dependable, unhysterical, adaptable, loyal and Honest. With money he is generous and readily contributes to a "good cause." He is hospitable to visitors, because he is anxious to show off the near-perfection of the New Zealand way of life.
Our reading is wide but uncritical, and fills our brains with a hodgepodge of half-digested inconsistencies. Conversation is limited to shop talk, personalities, sport and cliches. The only subjects in which we pretend or aspire to any critical knowledge, apart from personal fields of technical competence, are sport and politics. Otherwise, opinions are taken ready-made from the daily or weekly Press.
The New Zealander is a strong upholder of home life, but as he has no semblance of an idea of what such life can be, it makes him habitually bored and frustrated. He is loyal to his wife, but unless he has been married only recently, is not likely to be in love with her. His references to wives in general are uncomplimentary. Woman is a domestic animal, whose interests should be purely in and of the home if some other emotional outlet is necessary, let it be sought in magazine slop and the more sugary films. Women themselves are often ready to accept this idea of their sphere; most marriages are, accordingly, an intellectual vacuum.
Public acknowledgment of married love is commonly felt to be somewhat indecent. The public display of affection by others causes acute embarrassment to respectable people and is to be sedulously avoided.
New Zealanders are fond of children and their attitude towards them is ostentatiously sentimental, even slobbery. There is, however, little of that sickening adulation of dogs which is so repulsive a feature of English life.
The average New Zealander is altogether devoid of imagination, both the spiritual imagination of Western Europe and the material visions of the American or Australian. The practicality which we praise and boast of amounts to an inability to see further than our noses. Any far-reaching and long term plan (of immigration or erosion control, for instance) is apt to be sneered down as visionary and grandiose.
The idea of the Good Life is meaningless to the New Zealander, unless it is to consist of endless race meetings, bar schools and gardening.
We tolerate barbarous laws relating to drinking, gambling and sabbath observance, which make Sundays a desert, savagely restrict drinking in all its more civilised aspects and make us the laughing stock of visitors from civilised lands. Our innate puritanism makes us ashamed to drink in front of mothers and children and drink is thereby segregated from ordinary life and becomes a semi-furtive vice. Drink with meals implies that liquor might be natural and normal and is therefore very wicked indeed. Drink with dancing implies that liquor and gaiety might be associated and is likewise most properly prohibited.
We stuff ourselves with monotonous and indigestible food (beer is preferred to wine, meat to fruit, and our chief vegetables are potatoes and cabbage) and our houses with heavy furniture and ornaments of atrocious design. Our clothing is drab and unvaried and to travellers from overseas our women look dowdy. Brightness of dress is the exception and clothes have often little relation to the wearer's features or figure.
Although we can be quite indifferent to the most appalling ugliness, we are used to and appreciate beautiful scenery, the nature of which developes our sense of colour rather than form. We are totally bereft of architectural imagination and build everywhere, alike in the backblocks and on the tops of mountains, boxlike suburban bungalows with a breath-taking disregard of the environment. We like flowers but our lack of imagination prevents us from making adequate use of them. We do have a real liking and talent for gardening and of all our interests this is the most nearly civilised.
We have no intelligent interest in the arts and our taste is as deplorable as our knowledge. Music is a partial exception, perhaps because its appeal is primarily emotional. It docs not occur to us for a moment that the appeal of the other fine arts is an intellectual one.
In short, despite some important virtues, most New Zealanders neither live nor conceive of a truly civilised life, as it exists in Europe, the Americas and even Australia.
It was a lucky last minute change when Frank Curtin found he hadn't enough material for Sir Joseph Banks (a dilemma which has faced many a student who has set out to work up a New Zealand subject) and changed to Peter Fraser.
When he outlined Mr. Fraser's "chief features," our memory went back to his bald pate, his nose, and his spectacles, all part of Frank Curtin's characterisation of Mr. Fraser in past Extravs. Still, it was ironical that previous efforts had failed—his Simon Bolivar was far better—and this should win. It was a well deserved win from the point of view of hard work at coming back to the contest year after year, when judges complimented Frank on his gift for oratory, but had marked him down for other faults.
Denny Garrett's speech was a gem—a little gem in a contest for large and showy pieces, of jewellery. At last year's
Probably Denny could win if he attempted a grander scale, but we doubt if it would be like the marvellous effort this year because the class of speech he delivered is his forte, and one cannot create such masterpieces just to fit in with the rules of an oratory contest, and still retain their perfection.
Bryce Harland's Marx was overwhelming, if hardly convincing. Doubtless with maturity he will follow Frank Curtin at a later attempt, by which time his appreciation of the subtleties of Marx (at least as great of those of Dr. Buchman, should be more apparent. Perhaps his ability as a speaker accentuated defects in his treatment of Marx, for anyone who gained second equal with Denny Garrett can claim to be a good speaker.
When Jim Mutch began on Charles I, we were ready to hear just how the blue blood spurted at the block, for a lot of the evening had been filled in with harrowing descriptions of the deaths of each hero. The description of Mr. Fraser's funeral was impressive, apt, and probably the medal winning part of the speech. At any moment we expected a 2ZB style commercial to intervene:
"For your funeral, make sure you specify a Blogg's coffin—all the beat people are buried by Bloggs!"
Luckily, Jim Mutch concentrated on other things, and earned fourth place.
Among the other speakers we could not fail to note Dave Walsh's beard, even if we found his lecture on James Joyce a little annoying. Last year's Parnell (with Kitty O'Shea as a dessert) was far more skilful, and if more light-heartedly delivered would have earned a placing.
Both the Te Rauparaha of Bill McLeod and the Charles Darwin of George Sullivan were competently set out, but not quite oratory. They were sound enough, and the speakers were not disgraced, nevertheless they just filled up the evening without leaving any great impression.
Melda O'Reilly was unfortunate in her choice of character the bold T. E. Lawrence. This competitor had talent which was previously noticeable in her portrayal of Mrs. Rosa in Extrav. A second attempt with a less robust character—perhaps an artist or musician—would be worthwhile next year.
Electors face an appalling choice. We are exhorted to Smash Sid and Fascism; to vote for a Government which has failed to control the cost of living but has nevertheless a realistic attitude towards Communism; to vote for Labour and as yet no policy.
Most people will have sense enough to judge the Communist Party by their international activity as well as their declared domestic aims in the light of that activity the cry "Smash Fascism!" has a touch of farce.
If the Labour Party is to advance it must have a policy which at the moment it has not. Socialism is gone is there to be a replacement? Moreover the uncertain attitude towards Communism, and particularly the World Federation of Trade Unions is reason, in some minds, for uneasiness.
Apart from its firm attitude towards Communism the National Party has almost exhausted its policy and now finds that it may be necessary to re-introduce controls as the inflationary spiral keeps going. At least part of the blame for that spiral must be placed on those disturbing elements, mainly on the waterfronts of the world, which delay shipping and cause freight rises.
Students must make their choice. The most important thing is that they do vote having considered the issues and marking the disparity between the press which each party commands. Complacency and disinterest may eventually imperil New Zealand as it has enslaved others.
Prolix draws attention to the fact that the Plunket Medal Contest was held without the presence of the staff. Here are some other facts which may interest the staff and the students about this University:
Salient published an article on Sir Walter Moberly's "Crisis in the University." No one seemed interested.
The Staff debate, excellent in its fashion and good entertainment, failed miserably to provide any comment on staff-student relationships.
One member of the staff has so far been provoked into writing for Salient. Letters from students are few and far between.
We mourn The Spike, and three Journals plug along, subsidised, scratching for funds and, worse still, scratching for subscribers.
About 150 students attended the Annual General Meeting. As Prolix puts it: Was there a Professor in the House?—a Lecturer maybe but otherwise
It took the Emergency Regulations to provoke some members of the Staff—an encounter from which they did not emerge too well. What will be necessary to make this College a University?
As we prepare for the election the decease of the Southern Cross may be seen for what it was—a tragedy. In fact our newspapers are biased although not as biased as those in the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. It is a pity that there is no dally to present the other side.
Last issue Partisan and C.B. appeared as soulmates: one on the Free Press Behind the Iron Bars (metaphorical) of Capitalism and the other on Literature Behind Iron Bars (physical) of Capitalism. One of the literati wrote from Pankrac Prison where a week or so ago William Oat is, an Associated Press Correspondent was sentenced to ten years by the Czech Government and described by his Prosecutor as "particularly dangerous because of his discretion and insistence on only accurate, correct and verified information." So that is Freedom!
In most capitals a Communist paper continues to be published but in all of Soviet controlled Europe three western newspaper correspondents remain. No comment is necessary.
In reply to a correspondent signing himself "Aching Void."
I understand that you as editor of Salient approached the manageress of the cafeteria and asked that the quantity of herbs, etc., in the meals be diminished. This, I believe, she did the following day.
There are several other implications in this letter that I think need correcting.
It is a long time since we have had such attractively and politely served, well-cooked meals as we have at present.
The manageress has a few things which she would like to see changed.
(To avoid any impression of busy bodying I would point out that it was intended only to inform the Manageress that the letter was being published. The offer to cut out the herbs was then made. On the other points we agree—of course.
As neither a Communist nor an anti-Communist may I be allowed to give an opinion on the Russian film which was banned by the censor? The review of it by D.L.F. did nothing but give an account of what the makers of the film hoped it would say—not what it really did say.
The film was no more prejudiced than certain "Marches of Time" I have seen recently—in fact many scenes in the two were remarkably similar, but with a different commentary attached. When one saw scenes of school children engaged in peaceful pursuits they were labelled Americans in the American film, and Russians in the Russian film; and when tanks were shown trundling over hills they were labelled American in the Russian film and Russian in the American film. (Correction—in the American film there were two shots of trundling tanks . . . one of Russian tanks attacking Freedom and one of American tanks defending Freedom).
But the real value of the film lay not in uncovering any brutalities of American police in Vienna, not in revealing notings and discontent provoked by "American Imperialism" (for the riotings and discontent are only too prevalent on both sides of the Iron Curtain). Neither did the value lie in showing us the enormous number of Soviet signatures attached to the Stockholm Peace Petition (for the very reason why more of the Western world will not sign the Peace Petition is just because the signatures are too Red). The real worth in showing this film would be to open the eyes of the general public to the enormous amount of propaganda which is fed to us—in showing them that the Russians say the same things about us as we say about them, using practically identically the same scenes to say it. For this reason I feel the film should not have been banned. It may have helped to balance the fanatical anti-Communists who digest every word our newspapers and Government have to tell them about the Russians—balance them not by showing them what good fellows the Communists are, but that we use exactly the same lures to draw public opinion into our net of anti-Communism. (Of course the fact that no theatre would have been caught dead showing a Russian film is no excuse for banning it.)
Technically, the film was very poor indeed—bad print, bad sound track and very long and uninteresting shots of speaker after speaker talking in peculiar languages, with a barely audible English commentary in the background. I was surprised after Russia's rapid advance in earlier films that this one was not more slick.
(For obvious reasons. . . .)
[Anon. can rest easily—the Emergency Regulations weren't that sweeping.
We wish to draw your attention to the deplorable state of the lighting in room Al. It is high time fluorescent lighting was put in this room. At the moment we find it impossible to read under the desks during lectures, the result being that we are exceedingly bored! We have to choose between ruining our eyes or going to sleep. Surely it is high time something was done about it.
On behalf of all decent students we appeal to you to see that action is taken immediately.
Dr. Munz's letter in your issue of July 12 made disappointing reading. It was a painful surprise to sec a university lecturer arguing with so little regard for common logic and descending at times to straight-out sophistry.
Dr. Munz, with a fine disregard for the realities of the situation, argues as if the Rationalist historian studies the Gospels in a purely objective fashion and is, therefore, in a much better position to arrive at the truth than the Catholic or orthodox Christian, hamstrung by dogmatic preconceptions. That the Rationalist has his preconceptions too is clear from Dr. Munz's own statement that although he is not an expert on the subject of early Christianity, he prefers the opinions of Loisy, Klausner and Schweitzer to those of other scholars. Why, we ask, does he prefer the views of these scholars?
Surely because they are in harmony with his Rationalistic pre-conceptions. No historian, be he Christian or Rationalist, can study the Gospels in the cold objective fashion of one discussing, for example, the dates of an Egyptian dynasty. Christ is too challenging a figure for that. It is, therefore, a piece of dishonesty on the part of the Rationalist to adopt the pose of complete historical objectivity and refuse to argue with the Christian because the Christian refuses to admit that the Rationalist arguments are cogent.
In several places Dr. Munz makes bold assertion do duty for argument—a familiar fallacy known as begging the question. Thus, he asserts that the belief that the Christian faith and reason cannot contradict each other is unfounded—a proposition he will have some trouble in proving. Dr. Munz disdains to offer any proof.
Again he asserts that Loisy and Dollinger had good historical reasons for disagreeing with the Popes. Good reasons in the opinion of Dr. Munz. But at least in the case of Loisy he has admitted that he is not qualified to give a worthwhile opinion, since he is a "non-specialist" in that field.
In another passage Dr. Munz insinuates that Catholicism teaches that the end justifies the means. Insinuation is more effective than bold assertion and it has the advantage of leaving one with the option of declining to offer proof if the insinuation is challenged: "I never said that!" Here is the passage that the reader may judge for himself whether my charge is justified: "Frankly I do not like these propagandists ruses. They remind me too much of the maxim that the end justifies the means. No doubt your contributor considered himself well justified in his misrepresentations, because they were a means, in his eyes, towards supporting Catholicism."
Since Dr. Munz, on his own admission, knows so little of the beliefs of the Primitive Church he is certainly not entitled to assert that the doctrine of transubstantiation does not faithfully represent these beliefs.
Mr. MacNeill seems to miss the point. Did not the Peace Council here object to conscription? Why not in the Soviet? It is easy to say that the Movement condemns all war propaganda but is not insulting, irrational condemnation of the Western powers dangerous to Peace? Why not condemn that sort of thing on both sides? Surely the banning of the Stockholm Appeal, which has its faults, is not sufficient ground for expulsion of Yugoslavia by Itself? Most of the signatures to the appeal come from Communist controlled states where the Party is in power—the figures (22,000,000 Communists, 750,000,000 signatures is, therefore, not impressive).
The question of Lithuania, Estonia, etc., remains unanswered. So does the question of gifts of Soviet arms to North Korea.
The Public Relations Officer is very much a topic of discussion around the College nowadays—and soon will be around the city also. The Officer (Mr. J. D. Dalgety) with his committee has presented a few ideas before the Exec. and it appears that they have been doing a bit of deep thinking in the words of the president. (Mr. D. B. Horsley), it is essential that the Public Relations Committee should have a reasonably free hand, But it must remember its responsibility to the Association.
The Exec has on the books a tentative motion—"that the Public Relations Officer and the Public Relations Committee be authorised to make public statements on behalf of the association on factual matters"—fair enough but here is the catch, or if you prefer it, the restraining part of the motion. On matters of opinion or of principle Mr. Dalgety cannot make a statement to the Press without first consulting either the president or one of the vice-presidents. The Exec. does not want the P.R.O. to place them in such a position by an ill-advised statement on a controversial matter as to get the Exec, out on a limb, not able to back the officer up. And I presume that the Exec. are looking after their own interests too, for if the P.R.O. does get in bad odour with opinion in the City it will reflect on the confidence the association has in the Exec. as the P.R.O. is responsible to the Exec. and not to the association directly. So if such a thing happens (and it easily could) the Exec., being the middlemen, might suffer. Mr. Dalgety at the Exec, meeting on the night of July 26 mentioned that he might make his article to be submitted to the Press one on the Socialist Club. He thought, quite rightly, that various activities by the Soc. Club have been considered in the City to have been the work of a rowdy few acting without the advantage of mature deliberation and that, as a result, the City as a whole has arrived at a wrong idea of the Socialist Club and of the College. He thought that an article on the Soc. Club will clear up some misapprehensions and bad feeling in the City, and so leave the way open for him to start on a freshened (as far as politics in College go) City. Certainly an article on the College politics would be an excellent thing, but to give it this undue prominence by putting politics in the limelight as the first article of (I hope) what is to be a series is unwise. It implies that we are really so worried that the City considers us as irrational hotheads running around with banners that we consider that the first thing we have to do is to excuse ourselves for past (highly controversial) sins. Let us start off by telling the people what we are and are doing, rather than what we were and have done. The logical thing to do is to give the City a general idea of the workings of the Students' Association and the Executive. There will appear soon in Salient an article by Mr. Horsley giving his views on the duties of the Exec. to the association, and its work. Something of this nature is far more preferable than an article on College politics which, however reasonable and rational in tone would convey to the general City reader a spirit of "we didn't mean to!" Mr. M. J. O'Brien gave perhaps the most reasoned course of action for the P.R.O. when he said that Soc. Club publicity problems should be left unsaid until such time as they arise.
The rest of the meeting was particular and the only question of any importance that arose was when the monetary grants to Cappicade contributors were approved. Who is S.A.B.? Whoever he is he is going to miss out on some money if he doesn't hurry up and see Paul Cotton about his real name in
Mr. Dalgety, talking to the motion mentioned elsewhere, above, had a bit of trouble in pronouncing "commitcommittee" and said—"I would not like to be in such a position when I and the Kitty are in such a position as not to be responsible. . . ."
Recent newspaper reports scooped Salient with the news that the Men's Common Room is at last to have some more home comforts. An interview with Mr. K. Phillips about this scheme was very encouraging.
Not only were the Registrar and the Principal taken, by Messrs. Curtin and Phillips, to view this oubliette but they made them sit in the place. Their reported remarks were milder than the remarks its users have been making for some years. It is to be hoped that £100 will be spent wisely.
Several other matters in which Salient has interested itself were also mentioned and letters have been written to the Registrar about the towel position. So far nothing has happened.
Salient's readers will be pleased to know that it is no longer necessary to produce one's library card at the desk. The removal of this restriction will be welcomed. The Executives are asked to consider the formation of a committee so that those often wanted books at present in the stackrooms may be placed in the light of the antiques removed to the darkness. Something should be done about that periodical table confusion: piles of some and a few of the others, battered copies, out of date copies and no system.
The Notice board which has been cleaned up and is to be cleared of unauthorised notices periodically, may yet receive some more radical attention. The Executive have been successful in arranging for a notice board to be erected in the front hall. This will be used for the more important announcements which at present are lost in the main notice board maze.
Noteworthy: The Executive member whom Salient interviewed kept a notebook handy and subsequently raised many of the points during General business. It is also interesting to note that by the time they were raised interest seemed to have lagged owing to the length of the meeting. Perhaps if we keep going long enough these matters may be raised early.
The Photographic Club are intending setting up a dark-room in the basement of Weir House. Already they have obtained a plumber's estimate of £35 (approx.).
Easter Tournament Committee:—B. Chaplin (corresponding member and secretary); J. Foden (treasurer); Miss J. Young (billetlng-controller). Blues Committee:—Mrs. Dalgleish, Messrs. O'Connor and Tossman, (reelected) and P. D. Wilson.
The A.G.M. of the Historical Society held on July 10 marked what we hope to be the beginning of a more lively existence than the society has hitherto seen.
The new officers elected were:
President, Bryce Harland; vice-president, Jane Church; secretary, Anno Munz; committee, Robin Beaglehole, Bruce Brown, Robert Orr, Noel Matheson.
After the election of officers, Mrs. M. Boyd gave a penetrating account of certain aspects of England as she saw them on her recent trip; discussion was held over cups of tea.
The Society is intending all sorts of projects so, if you're interested, keep your eyes on the History and Main Notice Board, and help us inject enthusiasm into the organisation.
Auckland students have been tickled at the formation of their Peace Club, where the conservative element registered one ahead of the Socialist Club group. When the latter got cracking they found, not that the cupboard was bare, but that it was full of people who wanted Peace and who had thought of it first. The Socialists were reduced to the argument used usually against them: "Yes, we want peace, but not That sort."
The N.Z. Student Labour Federation Newsletter of July 1 gives top headlines to the need for hostels in our university colleges. But it does not stop at repeating the moans of many about the absence of them, and about the expense of student board elsewhere. It gives considerable and sympathetic attention to the views of Eric Ashby, vice-chancellor of Queen's University, Belfast, on the topic of "part-time hostels," which it suggests might be a solution to existing difficulties.
Mr. Ashby's views were first given prominence among New Zealand students in Canterbury College's "Canta" on June 20. Since Mr. Ashby is probably best known to students for his utterances against Soviet science, it may seem strange that S.L.F. should give him so much space; but his views on this student topic are certainly worthy of consideration.
The problem is, Mr. Ashby suggests, not only one of lack of nocturnal accommodation, but one of a proper atmosphere for study. "In thousands of homes," he says, "family life revolves around one fire in the house, with father listening to the radio, with young sister learning French in an undertone, and mother needing help with housework. This is the intellectual climate in which many day students work, and it is a serious threat to the integrity of scholarship."
Is there no alternative to "halls of residence" as a solution to the problem of the home student? Mr. Ashby thinks so.
He points out that 54 per cent, of the "ideal" hall of residence is set aside for study-bedrooms, passages, stairs, lobbies and that much expense goes in "keeping students asleep." He suggests that many of the benefits of these places could be secured and many of the difficulties of the home dwelling student avoided, if students took their sleep and their porridge and toast at home or at digs and were able to spend the rest of their time at the university under suitable conditions for studying.
"Suppose," he said, "it were arranged that the university fees (or bursaries says we) included a composite charge for lunch and dinner and the regulations for undergraduates required a regular attendance at both lunch and dinner. And suppose there were comparatively little class work in the afternoons and that labs and libraries and study-rooms were open until 10 p.m. And suppose refectories provided a cup of tea or cocoa up till 10.30 p.m. And suppose it were regarded by members of the teaching staff as part of their jobs to be in the university a couple of evenings each week, among their students. Would arrangements such as these not go quite a long way to bring the benefits of community life into a civic university?"
"If such a proposal were considered," comments Canta, "Mr. Ashby points out that it would be a matter of 'extension of library and union facilities, particularly of studies (similar to those provided at any boarding school), of alcoves in the library and the club rooms in the union, together with a small theatre, small rooms for gramophone recitals and informal parties (!)' and nearby sports facilities. Such facilities as these are often on the university's programme as it is"—but we would add, seldom further than on its programme.
Such proposals would be, Ashby admits, expensive; but, he says:
"It may be worthwhile to enquire whether the £250,000 necessary to provide residence for 150 students (with a corps of wardens and cleaners and other "superfluous luxuries" as SLF Newsletter puts it) could not in fact, provide accommodation up to bedtime for five times that number of students."
Is this scheme applicable to V.U.C.?
It seems to us that half the battle would be won with the erection of this so-near-and-yet so-far Student Union Building. There we would have ample facilities for at least some of us to study in as well as play in. But the whole problem seems in the final argument to revolve around the need for more fulltimers; and that, in turn, on the Government's duty to spend a little more on living-allowance bursaries and a little less on guns.
The Debating Society held, its most successful meeting recently when the heavy artillery of the Left and Right Wing contested the subject, "That the present Government as lost the confidence of the people of this country." It was an or of the committee to word the topic in this way; it would have been far less restricting if the subject had been put: "That this meeting has no confidence in the present Government."
Conrad Bollinger opened the case for the affirmative, by making a grand review of Mr. Holland's seven-point election broadcast of Right and Wrong." Mr. Holland had promised us he would abolish compulsory unionism and this was a plank in his policy with which the Left-wing wholeheartedly agreed but when in office he shamelessly farted to fulfil his pledge because if he did his own stooges in the trade union movement would suffer."
Frank Curtin replied for the negative. Like Conrad, he took Mr. Holland's promises and systematically reviewed them. He attacked Conrad's assertion about education policy as factually incorrect. In fact, instead of the grant decreasing it had been increased. I rank claimed that the people of New Zealand were realistically minded and thoroughly supported the present foreign policy. The strongest point in his argument was that the pie-sent Government had carried out its pre-election pledges with respect to industrial matters, and that its treatment of the watersiders was fully supported by the great majority of the people of New Zealand. Frank admitted that there had been an inflationary trend in New Zealand but he maintained that it had been evident in the years before the Nationalists had come to power and was a world-wide movement, beyond the power of any administration to alter.
Doug Foy was the second speaker for the affirmative. He argued that the present Government had been elected on two slogans: "Make the £ go further" and "time for a change." in fact the £ could have been said to have gone very much further—away, and even if the people of this country had seen fit to turn out of office the Labour Party after 14 years they were now in a mood to turn out the Nationalists after 19 months. Doug disagreed with Frank about the pledge to maintain Social Security benefits. Although they had not been openly attacked, inflation had greatly diminished their effect. The farmers had got nothing from this party except a 50 per cent, surcharge on their freight and a rise in the price of the Journal of Agriculture by 400 per cent. It was perfectly true that Mr. Holland could do nothing about inflation, and it was equally true that any other capitalist Government anywhere in the world was equally powerless. This was, however, an argument for Socialism.
Jim Hogg was the second speaker for the negative. He pointed out that the confidence of the people must be increased by the way in which they have dealt with the recent industrial disturbance. The vast majority of the people of this country approve the Government's firm hand with industrial trouble makers. In foreign affairs we had to realise that we could not stand alone in the Pacific and that America was our best guarantee. The Government's intention to go ahead with the military service scheme and extend it had the support of the people. "No Government which fearlessly, honestly and genuinely pursues its avowed policy can lose the confidence of the people."
After the first barrage was over there arose from the floor of the House an eloquent and fiery regiment of speakers anxious to air their views, ventilate their prejudices and generally ride their hobby horses for the edification of all. It is impossible to record the whole lot accurately and a certain amount of injustice is bound to be done to all of them.
Mr. Clayton supported the negative case. He stressed strongly that the question was whether the Government had the confidence of the people of New Zealand, not necessarily this house. The average person does not worry about the ethics or morality of the Emergency Regs., they simply view it all from the point of view of how it affects them personally. Rightly or wrongly they think Holland's handling of the strike was good and they will vote for him.
Dave Walsh was not quite up to his best form but firmly announced his conviction that all government was bad. "I follow Mr. Sorel in believing that the worst thing about any government is that it governs!"
I thought I noticed an ominous glint in Dave's eye when he remarked "If Mr. Holland thinks that violence is come to an end in New Zealand he is very
Bill McLeod pointed out that it was strange that if the people supported the Government there were such tremendous rallies at public meetings hold by the deregistered watersiders. The foreign policy of the present Government ran counter to the people's desire for an enduring peace.
Jerry Warner pointed out that it was not a question of the Government losing the confidence of the people: in his view it had never had it. From conversations about the town it was clear that there was a growing antagonism toward the present office-holders.
Mr. Sullivan declared that there was a logical flaw in Mr. Curtin's argument for, if the Nationalists had the confidence of the people, why were they going to the polls long before an election was normally due? The watersiders had challenged them to go to the people on the industrial issues because they claimed the Government had forfeited the confidence of the nation. In effect they had admitted the truth of this charge.
Mr. Cunllnane supported the negative view. "No one leader, from Stalin to Lady Godiva could stop the rise in the cost of living."
Mr. Bryce Harland supported the affirmative case; he pointed out that Holland's might is right theory had dangerous precedents in other countries at other times. The emergency regulations were a grave attack on personal liberties.
Mr. Erie Robinson approached the question with his own philosophical method. Philosophical is hardly the right word, perhaps "world view" is fairer. Erie saw the ideal society as a community of friends with the right of all to speak their mind at any time. The greatest good of the greatest number could not be denied as the best basic assumption of such a 6tate. How did the realities of Aotearoa stack up against this ideal. The police state regulations and suppression of contrary opinion could only engender hatred and enmity.
Mr. Jansen spoke for the negative. He believed that the creation of a wool board by the present Government was an excellent thing because it meant that no longer could American buyers and buyers of other large concerns overseas determine the price level in their own interest. This was desirable because it restored true competition.
Pip Piper vigorously attacked the present Government's education policy. He pointed out that there was a grave shortage of teachers and the situation was certain to get worse if the present Government continued in office. Not one new school, not already started in the Labour regime, had been opened and there was going to be more and more children demanding classrooms and teachers. Poor salaries and abominable working conditions were driving teachers away from their vocations.
Maurice O'Brien ranged over points made by many other speakers and contested them on factual grounds. He supported, of course, the negative. He denied Conrad's contention with respect to the education grant; "it had been larger than ever." He denied that a tough policy toward militant unions drove them into the arms of the Communists and instanced the Auckland Carpenters as an example.
T. Beaglehole, although disapproving of many actions of the present Government, particularly the Emergency Regulations and the refusal of the Auckland Town Hall to the Leader of the Opposition, was convinced that the people of New Zealand supported the present Government.
Jim Milburn, sartorially exquisite as ever, mightily orated the meeting with a Machiavellian power analysis. Cynics have accused Jim of facing both ways and sitting on the fence in the past, and I am sure that Jim would have done nothing to make them alter that opinion last Friday evening. He shrewdly pointed out that by capturing the Labour Party's "hunt the Reds" programme and extending it, the National Party had left their opponents with precious little of a policy at all. The constant Press thundering on patriotism and the foreign menace would ensure success for the present office holders. There was nothing like flag-wagging to win an election.
Hector MacNeill emphasised that the farming and meat interests in New Zealand had been greatly hurt by Tory subservience to overseas capital and quoted the views of Ormond of the Meat Board and Scott-Davidson of the Farmers Federation to support this contention.
Frank Curtin summed up by answering specific points raised by speakers from the floor and stated that his case stood or fell on the Government's industrial policy.
Conrad summed up by saying that the Nationalists' election policy was unqualified. He quoted Mr. Bowden: "We will deal effectively with inflation"; he did not say that we will deal effectively if Stalin lets us. Foreign policy was the worst aspect for it was dictated by foreign blood blinded militarists.
The judge, Mr. Benda, of the Political Science Dept, assessed Jim Milburn as the best speaker of the evening. The motion was lost by 20 votes to 14. For a thoroughly enjoyable evening everyone should attend future meetings of this society.
Readersof Salient will, perhaps, have noticed the derogatory remarks fired at this year's Cappicade by Vaux and other "critics." What you may not know, however, is that almost the entire material in it sprang from the "fertile" brains of the "Editorial Committee' and, more particularly, from that of the Editor.
What we, at this College, fail to appreciate is that for a thing to be good there must be whole-hearted enthusiasm for it on all sides. Why leave it to the few and then moan and groan afterwards when you don't like the result?
Here, then, is an opportunity for all to participate in. This year's effort, they say was "sterile"—can You make it better next year? Can You think up bawderline jokes? Can You write or draw funny pictures? Next year's Cappicade is being planned now on the lines of a parody of some weekly magazine or journal. Naturally, this requires all the "funny men" now hiding in obscurity to come forward and offer their talent. There is no need to start work on it until early next year but it would be a help if we could see how many, are willing to work and not just criticise.
Recall to mind those jokes you told at the last reunion! Make up some you wouldn't tell even at a reunion! Be smart! Be wise! Be witty! and get in touch with me via the letter rack in the men's common room.
Margaret Walkers work as a producer continues to surprise us each time in spite of our being prepared to be surprised by her.
This in itself has probably gained her a wider following than would be expected, if one is to judge by the large attendances at each showing of Dark of the Moon, presented by Miss Walker as the Training College's major production of the year in V.U.C. Little Theatre.
Irrealism suggests itself as a handy label to describe the talents of Miss Walker, and this play, by Howard Richardson and William Berney, proved a convenient irrealist vehicle.
Fantastic, incredible. Miss Walker worked it up to an emotional pitch that was gripping, that did suspend one's disbelief; and, this accomplished, made the play one of the most moving, in several places that Wellington has seen in many months.
I stress the importance of Miss Walker's work because it was surely the hand of the producer which made a cohesive force out of a production composed of so many false coins and bad patches; not all o them attributable to the inexperience of the cast, but in herring in the play itself.
Though I have not had time in which to study the written play, I am prepared to assert that certain high-points were not helped by the too-obvious grafting of rhyme onto the text. Poor rhyme which could but irritate and obtrude itself as being out of character.
These bad spots were momentary and soon made up and forgotten as the play forged ahead to its inevitable conclusion—a statement of a theme as old as the Greeks—that Gods (or supernatural agents) and mortals cannot mix.
Dark Of The Moon is composed of elements from American folk-lore, and folk music, the chief source of inspiration being the hill-ballad, Barbara Alien.
It's about a witch-boy who falls in love with the all-too-human Barbara Allen, and who wants to become a human so that he may win her.
The conjur woman grants his wish, and he may remain a human forever if Barbara Allen will but remain faithful to him for one year.
The "folky" atmosphere is the first obstacle to a sophisticated audience. The play weans them from disbelief somewhat subtley by the crudest possible means—an injection of "mountain maythin." Ozark humour straight from the pages of A1 Capp.
The only stock character absent is "the revenoor." But he wasn't needed, even for a laugh.
Up in them that hills a man's an island unto himself till he's caught; an' a gall don't git wed till she has ter.
Waal, the Allen's is in a purty fix 'coas Barbara has ter, an' once agin all the men, sensing the threat to their status, has become women-shy.
All except the strange boy from Baldy Mountain—whar there ain't nobody lives—but anyway, he presses his suit and is taken.
Jest as well too, since he's the party who done Barbara wrong—but o' course, nobody really knows.
A lot of curious happenings make the locals of Buck Creed suspicious of "John Human" and his wife Barbara Allen, who eventually is bedded and gives birth to—a witch.
And all their fears and gossip becomes confirmed.
The night upon which John Human is to become really human—the night of the anniversary of Barbara's fidelity, coincides with the big revival meeting.
Barbara's mother has dragged, her to the meeting, and there the whole story comes out.
With the full sanction of the church, and in the midst of the congregation, Barbara is raped by a lusting local to save them all from calamity.
There is only left the death of Barbara and the return of the witch boy to the mountain-top to complete the tale.
The revival meeting is the grand climax—and from it
It is a strange and original way of making the point, but effective, and I nominate the revival meeting as being the mast disgusting and telling fragments of unbearability I have seen.
Miss Walker taxed her young players to the utmost and no doubt got the best from them.
The songs sprinkled liberally throughout, and the light, "folky" touch gave often an extravaganza—or at least, festive—air.
I doubt that an older man could have convinced so well as the witch boy as did John Norton.
Barbara, a Harold Bell Wright heroine in the midst of the Al Capp characters, showed unusual refinement for her environment, and was left to Oriole Whitlock.
Good casting was shown in the contrast of the two witch-girls, representing perhaps the moonlight and shadow of witch Dom and the duality of the black-magic world which carries over into our own.
Some of the "charactcrs" got the maximum from their lines:—Geoff Barlow us Uncle Smelicue; Elizabeth Gordon as Miss Metcalf; Bryan Snell grove as Floyd Allen, succeeding particularly well.
And perhaps best of all. Kevin Woodill as the hell-fire preacher, the Reverend Haggler, who could take his "com licker" with the best of me and still have wind left to exhort redemption.
It is possible that Dark Of The Moon will be presented to larger city audiences again later in the year.
The cast will therefore have time in which to perfect their lines, and Miss Walker will have on her hands something of a local triumph.
Salient apologises to Contributor Oakden-Davies, whose poem concerning the £ was proof-read incorrectly. He wishes us to point out that he is influenced by E. E. Cummings and wishes to experiment with patterns in poetry—for a further reference to his poetry see our review of "Moa on Lambton Quay."
Bryce Harland's rhetorical question: Who is the man who rules us all? (with a wave towards the Town Hall and the ghost of Karl Marx), brought a sotte voce "Yehudi Menuhin" from Kevin O'Brien.
We might have thought that the Problem of Hamlet was now settled and closed for all time; Olivier's interpretation seemed to have set the seal on Shakespeare's intention of drawing "the struggle between the goal and the will of an individual" (as Goethe put it); or, in Freudian terms, schizophrenia, a chronic inability to make a decision,—streaked with a little of that spicy complex named after Oedipus.
It seemed to satisfy most of us. But then, just as we were feeling that there was no need ever to worry about the question again,—John Bamborough gave a talk over the B.B.C., (published in the English "Listener" for
Bamborough would include another soliloquy into the play—he isn't sure where. In it he would insert the real reason for Hamlet's indecision,—notably that his whole philosophy revolted against the act that his obligation to vengeance implied: the murder of one who was both his blood relation and his King.
Now this is, I suggest, the true motive for the Dane's becoming, like John o' Dreams, unpregnant of his cause. But I further suggest that there is no need to add anything to Shakespeare. There is no need to demand another speech giving expression to these motives. We can easily and justly infer them to have been true from the whole plot of the play and the character of the hero.
Much is said about Shakespeare's "universality," of how the human passions and situations to which he gives expression, transcend time and place. But Shakespeare himself was only too conscious of his limitations in this direction: Hamlet, speaking of the players, remarks, "They are the abstract and brief chronicle of the time" (II,2), and again, that the aim of drama "both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, score her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and the pressure." (111:2).
His greatest tragedies, it seems to me, are great for the very reason that they deal more dramatically and completely with the great conflicts of the age in which they were written, than any contemporary from the fact that the conflicts of that age have since proved to be of vital importance to the world.
The Elizabethan Age we all know, was a turning-point in the history of England. The Tudors had more absolute power than any sovereigns before or since. It was Henry VII who, on Bosworth field, finally quailed the robber barons who formed the feudal elite, and it was Charles I with whose blue blood was written the charter giving power to the great middle class. The tudor monarchy can be said to have held the reins in a hiatus.
But beneath the apparently smooth surface of Bess's England, lay the conflict. Bess herself was part of it. Why did she have to quell the Northern Earls at the beginning of her reign, and arrest Peter Wentworth for sedition at the end of it? Because all her life was a delicate tightrope act, an attempt to hasten the death of a dying power, and kill a rising one in the womb at the same time. The Renaissance was the natural process of the freeing of the individual, spiritually and materially, from feudalism and its world-outlook. It was a conflict of a traditional, stagnant philosophy, with absolute standards in all matters physical and metaphysical, and a nascent, immature and rampant individualism which seemed to have no moral principles.
Shakespeare, holding the mirror faithfully up to nature, recorded it all. Lear, Hamlet, and Macbeth, although in terms of a different time, all have aspects of this conflict as their basic themes. Macbeth is actuated purely by ambition, with the aid of the forces of hell, in committing the acts that make the plot and lead to his downfall. In this play, as Professor Stoll has inferred we see the supernatural aligning itself on either side of the conflict—the ghost of Ban-quo representing the "nemesis," the wronged powers of good, and the Witches as the devil's agents, spurring on the devilishness that is in all flesh. Both these unseen powers are straight from medieval theology, and they symbolise the plot on a higher plane.
In Lear, the title figure is an old, idealistic fuedal monarch with his faithful pillars in the persons of Gloucester and Kent. Opposed to them is the anarchistic, selfish, pragmatic philosophy of the two elder (laughters and Edmund. The latter, even more than Macbeth, or any of the cruder products of Marlowe or any other dramatist, is the symbol of the "Machiavellian," the evil individualist who acknowledges none of the restraints of the "scholastic" attitude, but only his own base material interests. His speech that:
"This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune—often the surfeit of our own behaviour—we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon and the stars," (1,2), asserts the self-sufficiency of the individual, and denies that "there is a divinity that shapes our ends," Hamlet's credo. Edmund revolts against the whole theory of "degree", the core of scholasticism, which Shakespeare has expressed elsewhere:
(Troilus and Cressida, 1,3).
The representatives of dying order in Lear are only too conscious of the fact that order is dying, and that the age of the Edmunds and the Machiavels is come. Gloucester exclaims:
"Love cools; friendship falls off, brothers' divide. In cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond cracked 'twixt son and father . . . the King falls from bias of nature . . . We have seen the best of our time. Machinations, hollowness, treachery and all ruinous disorders follow us unquietly to our graves." (Lear, 1,2).
And Lear himself, in that scene where his madness symbolises his social effeteness, and the storm symbolises the same great conflict, exclaims to that storm:
The "natural" order is disintegrating: the man of the old order and outlook secs it as the end of all. That is just the theme of Hamlet.
The play centres around the gradual formulation and execution of revenge by the son of a murdered man on the murder who is also the avenger's uncle. Both murdered and murderer are Kings. As wo see from Gloucester's speech, part of the "natural" order of medievalism was the sacred duty that bound subject to King, and blood relations one to another. The ghost of the late King Hamlet, who, as a "nemesis" ghost from Purgatory is definitely on the side of "natural order," condemns his own murder by his brother as "foul and most unnatural," and calls on Hamlet
"If thou hast nature in thee, bear it not!" (I.v).
Hamlet sees revenge as a sacred duty. But at the same time regicide is a crime condemned by heaven and earth. Rosencrantz remarks, apropos of Hamlet's threats to Claudius, that
Hamlet realises this, and is, too, conscious of his kinship to
Faced with the complete lack of scruple of the Machiavellian Claudius, Hamlet is faced with the fundamental contradiction of his own wornout philosophy. While demanding dutiful vengeance, It deplored the regicide which vengeance in this instance involved, for the villain has, albeit by an "unnatural" act, acquired a crown.
The fault is not in Hamlet's mind; it is in the incompetence of his philosophy to deal with the situation he meets, its effeteness in the times he lives in. As Edmund says in Lear, "Men are as the time is." Claudius is. So is Laertes, who scruples not to shed royal blood to avenge his father. So too is Fortinbras, who, by sheer determination and absence of moral hesitation, marches to victory at the close of the play when the stage is strewn with the corpes of nearly all the other characters in omitting this absolute contrast with Hamlet, Olivier cut out a very effective and integral part of the drama.
Hamlet is aware that he is not dealing with individuals, but with the time. The couplet
is the crux of the whole tragedy. Faced with a time that is out of joint, he is too conscious of his own shortcomings to try to deal with it, and his principles are too revolted to let him try.
I realise that it lays me open to all manner of abuse to suggest that a Soviet spokesman has even said anything sensible. But in
In other words, his philosophy was breaking down, he symbolised the disintegration of a class (all right, if you don't like that word, think up another one). To me, that explains his inability to make up his mind, his talk of suicide, and its automatic cancellation because
His canon gainst self-slaughter" and later (1,2)
World-weariness is natural when the only other choices are to fight a losing battle, or to lie down under the lotteries of fate. When at last he did
he settled nothing. For when the time is out of joint it takes more than one man to set it right.
And, as history proved, the Renascence did more good for the world than harm. The Claudiuses—and the Edmunds and Macbeths and Faustuses and Barabases and Tamburlaincs—were also the pirate kings of politics and commerce and adventure on whose privateering was built the material (and untimately the cultural) prosperity of capitalist England; and the Hamlets, like the young gentlemen in Auden's poem (himself, in turn, a descendant of the pirate kings),
"owned a world that had its day."
The "long' haired fringe" of this year's T.C. students, produced their brain child this week the net resulta of weeks of lunchtime contemplation within the normally deserted tennis pavilion in the Glen, have emerged within the covers of "The Moa on Lambton Quay"—a collection of "animal, vegetable and funeral" verse.
Mentor Tony Vogt has, we think, some cause for satisfaction at the first publication of his poetry circle. The general poetic level throughout being good, if rather uneven in places.
Represented are the works of such well-known New Zealand "literate" as J. K. Baxter and Louis Johnson, as well as T.C. and varsity poets—Lyster Paul, O. P. Davies, Victor O'Leary, Brian Hildreth, Barry Mitcalfe and Eric Schwimmer. The publication is neatly introduced by a quite arresting cover design by Frank Dean.
A first general impression would seem to be the desire on the part of many of the contributors to experiment; a preoccupation with words rather than imagery is apparent throughout. Yet it is this very semantical approach which produces the merit of much of the work, in particular Barry Mitcalfe's "Are My Morals Upsetting" and "Zebra," by Clive Ewart.
As is usual in such collections of verse, there are occasional lapses into doggerel and there would appear little justification for the inclusion of several pithy limericks other than "fill in" pieces.
The poem by Oakden Davies, from which the collection takes its name, is unquestionably of high standard, carrying with it a simple and pleasing rhythm. After such an intriguing introduction to his work, the full publication of Mr. Davies' work will be awaited with interest. The other works by Oakden Davies, whilst not as pleasing rhythmically, are compelling by their originality.
Mr. Baxter, we imagine, has by now found more illustrious publications for his very best verse, but two of his poems, "Levitation" and "Calvinist in Spring" display a maturity and grasp of poetic form lacking in several other contributors.
Barry Mitcalf must be the "poetic hope" of T.C., and with some justification. His "Each Careless Face" is a perfect expression of the poignant truth of loneliness.
Occasionally the urge to "shock" favours a certain "striving after effect," which mars the work. This is noticeable in the largest work in the collection "No Compromise," by Gwen Hawthorn, which, despite one or two neat phrases, succeeds only in being turgidly unconvincing.
The remaining contributors have submitted works of promise, often marred by triteness of theme. It is refreshing to find that "Social Conscience" seldom obtrudes itself and all pieces may be read with enjoyment.
Definitely an enterprise to be encouraged and in matter of production, printing and content, well worth the purchase price.
One final reflection, was it really necessary for Mr. Ryan to rhyme "rum" with "bum"?
The sporting fraternity will be interested to hear that Vic's Bob Street, reigning N.Z.U. middleweight champion for the past two years, has been making a name for himself in outside competition. Bob recently won the Hutt Valley title in a tournament which was noted for its high standard. On the way he defeated W. Kerrigan, the Wellington title-holder and the rugged Fred Ling man, who, since his defeat of New Zealand and Australasian champion Maurice Tuck, has been considered the toughest nut to crack in the Dominion.
These performances put Bob in the very first rank of New Zealand middle weights and it is somewhat ironical to recall that despite his clean sweep of the tournament middleweight division for the two seasons that he has represented Vic. he was not awarded a N.Z.U. Blue, because, apparently he was not considered up to a "good provincial standard." It must be remembered, too, that he has been unable to give the same amount of time and concentration to training throughout the season (he is a full-time Science student) as the general run of top amateurs. Although on current performances he must be a strong contender for the national title, it is probable that he will be unable to spare the time so late in the academic year. Nevertheless our congratulations go to Bob on his meritorious performances and we wish him the best of luck for any future bouts.
He has been a tower of strength to the club and looks good to bring the tournament middleweight title back for Vic. for as long as he cares and is eligible to contest it. Perhaps he will wear the Blues panel down by a tediously consistent success!
Tuesday of study week saw teams from the two hockey clubs clash at Karori Park. From the start the team in skirts showed themselves master tacticians. When some of their players were late to arrive they borrowed Peter Leslie and Trev Turner and inspired the latter to open the scoring. Sobered at stalwarts such as these being putty in the hands of the opponents, the men's team swung into attack but found that even if full-backs Agnes Lovell and Lois Holland were eluded, it was a good shot indeed that beat goalie Adrianne Oderkerk. Scores mounted, however with Bas Syminton, Trev Mowbray and Harry Wakelin executing tricky shots from the horizontal, after subtle tackles from halves Jenny Stewart and Ruth Oderkerk. On the wing Ed Hayward could make little pace against the efforts of Barbara Hill and Gill Lesher, who often switched play to their own forwards. Here the Young twins, Janet and Bice, were to the fore, assisted by Susan Barr and Mary Tolhurst in a spate of scoring which brought goals to seven, they threatened to lead, till Bas and Trev Turner cracked on the pace and increased the score to 10. Clever combination gave full-back David Jarvis no chance and Nev Fursdon and Noel Underhill soon found it safer to step aside from the rushes by the women players, though, in fairness, much of their skill and concentration was devoted to a liberal interpretation of the advantage rule during their terms as referee. The men's team has expressed its thanks to the women's club, with a hope that the next game will be equally enjoyable.
At the 1950 Manufacturers' Convention in Christchurch the Rector of Canterbury University College, Dr. H. R. Hulme, M.A., Ph.D., Sc.D. (Cantab.) gave an address, the text of which was published in "The New Zealand Manufacturer" for February. The address was particularly well received by those present, and because the subject is of particular interest to VUC students, many of whom are employed in, or have a future in, commerce and industry, we are glad to be able to publish a summary here.
The speaker has not been long in New Zealand, and most of the talk was based on his English experience. He quoted from a paper delivered at an English university conference by Lieutenant-General Sir Ronald Weeks, a director of Vickers-Armstrong, and chairman of the National Council on Education for Industry and Commerce, who believed: "That a very great deal of hard work and concentrated thought must be devoted to enlarging understanding (both among universities and leaders of industries and commerce), of the relationship between their respective spheres of activity, and of the importance of developing this relationship in every possible way to ensure the best result."
Dr. Hulme also shared the views of Dr. Raven (a visitor to this country last year) who suggested that the university should enter into increasingly close relationship with political, industrial, technological and vocational bodies, in order to continue to play its part in the world. "It is our plain duty," Dr. Raven said, "to give of our best for human welfare, and at the same time to safeguard academic freedom and the maintenance of primary and disinterested research."
The English conference reached several conclusions. What applied overseas did not necessarily apply to New Zealand, but it was always useful to know what schemes had been successful overseas. First, no one doubted that there was a place for the university graduate in industry. This not only meant those technically qualified in science or engineering, but the demand also included graduates in any subject for management positions. The policy of many of the larger distributive firms, and big city stores, was to secure the best trained minds it could get hold of. It was not so much the knowledge acquired at the university, but the training in the habits of concentration, of clear thinking, and of impartial analysis of situations which was the worthwhile thing. Apart from appointments to technical jobs, the subject of the degree was not considered to be of great importance.
VUCs budding (and blossomed) B.Com's must take to heart a further quote from General Weeks: "It is doubtful whether those who have taken university courses in the field of commerce by part-time study have added to their capacity for holding responsible office, except in purely technical 'expertise.' Employers in England had given little recognition to such men in choosing applicants for higher training or importance.
The well-trained mind with the right sort of personality was more important, even for technical jobs, than crammed examination lore, in Dr. Holme's view. In technical jobs the knowledge gained was important in the first six or seven years, but from that time onwards technical knowledge diminished in importance until twenty years after graduation as many as 75 per cent, were no longer dependent on it. Eventually personal qualities became paramount, and influenced further advancement in a great industrial concern studied in England.
Dr. Hulme went on to quote General Weeks again; we
"The weight of the evidence as to the attitude of the majority of employers today in considering the type of men required for posts of responsibility suggests that the qualities most required are not mere academic brilliance or attainment alone, but rather in addition the powers of leadership, judgment, quickness of decision and the ability to see a job through to its finish, and that the type of man who has been able to benefit fully from a university education is often more likely to possess a combination of these qualities than is the younger entrant to industry or commerce recruited straight from school."
But he adds, "the immature graduate, who has used his university life as a medium for self-indulgence, and who has concentrated solely on social and sporting pursuits to the exclusion of intellectual study and discipline, will soon be found wanting in the performance of those rigorous everyday tasks, involving hard and concentrated thought, which make up much of the life of those who hold responsible positions in progressive industry and commerce today. Equally the over-studious graduate will fall, the one who has merely used the university as a medium for communicating factual Information, and has taken no part in the activities of those multitudinous democratic institutions which play such an important part in true university life."
The British system was summarised by Dr. Hulme thus: "Graduates are going into industry and commerce in considerable numbers, and a university education, besides providing the necessary technical knowledge for certain jobs, should in all cases aim at training its students in clear thinking and concentration, and should give them opportunity to develop in other directions besides the purely academic."
The United States, in contrast, had courses in business administration (some merely secretarial courses, but the better ones aiming at providing a training for professional leadership).
How could these developments be applied in New Zealand? What should be the relationship between the university and industry, and what should industry do to help the university, whose task was wider than the mere service of industry?
The unit of industry in New Zealand was far smaller, and often it was necessary for the manager to be a jack-of-all-trades with down to earth practical experience in his own industry. These smaller firms could not afford to employ technical research staff, much less personnel officers and other specialists. By the establishment of co-operative research associations such as have been working in England for many years, New Zealand industrialists could help to overcome their handicap of small size. But these associations should not be dominated by day-to-day service and solving of current problems of members. A proportion of time must be spent on fundamental research with only a long range application to industry.
Staff and human relations were of greatest importance, and Dr. Hulme suggested that there was a place in New Zealand for the industrial consultant, with room for a good deal of research as well.
Dr. Hulme defined the basic job of the university as one of education—in the broadest sense of the word—of its students. "Can a man who wishes to go into industry or commerce get any real and lasting benefit from a university education, or is it largely a waste of his time? Certainly we can train school teachers, engineers, medicals, etc., but I think it is a crucial test of the value of university education that a man who has taken a degree should be able to do his job better whatever that Job is. The speaker felt that too many sought merely a rubber stamp "B.A." or "B.S.c" through acquiring a number of facts for use in examinations, and missed the important things the university could give: "a training in concentration, in thoroughness, unswerving loyalty to facts however unpleasant, and an ability to think straight and impartially as is humanly possible."
The practice of the New Zealand Public Service in grading commencing salaries according to the degree obtained contrasted with English practice. It looked as if the examination result was the only thing that mattered in this country, whereas three large English firms had this to say:
There were two main reasons why graduates were not given all-round training. First, there was an attempt to combine the university with a higher technological college, and secondly, the budget was hopelessly inadequate for either part of this double job. Dr. Hulme distinguished the task of a higher technological college as turning out men competent and highly trained in a particular field, such as refrigeration engineering. The university, on the other hand should give engineers a broad view of their profession and its relation to other professions, and develop their ability to think for themselves rather than teach them "know-how."
Dr. Hulme thought there was a need for at least one college of higher technological training in New Zealand, to avoid this combination of courses at present taught in the university. The smallness of the budget was the most cramping disability of all New Zealand's expenditure per student was only one third of that in Great Britain. The quality of young men and women was second to none; Professor
Finally, Dr. Hulme discussed the possibility of establishing a school of business administration on American lines. It should be a graduate school—the university should not teach secretarial courses, but should teach from the broadest possible view, in order to comply with Professor Whitehead's test "If the subject lends itself to disinterested thinking; if generalisations can be extracted from it, if it can be advanced by research; if, in brief, it breeds ideas in the mind, then the subject is appropriate for a university." Because only one school could be afforded, it should be set up at Victoria alongside the School of Public Administration.
The old Extrav chorus now applies to VUS student Bill Bransgrove, who has sought the National nomination for Wellington Central. The Socialist Club is content with endorsing Labour candidates, but the Charter Club has actually produced a would be M.P. Wouldn't it be fun to sec Ron Smith (M.Com.) standing in the same electorate!
An amusing account of a London meeting is given by the Peoples' Voice. It seems that forcer Salient editor Alec McLeod and others have met to consider the threat of the Emergency Regulations to stay-at-home New Zealanders. It all sounds rather like the Free French or the London Poles who took refuge abroad during the war. At any moment we expect to get a newsletter like we see turned out by various emigre groups from Spain and Greece.
Few staff members seem to think it their duty to attend Plunket Medal. Few students do either, but shouldn't the staff do a little better in putting in an attendance at major student functions?
It is scarcely graceful to criticise the judges of Plunket Medal, especially our good friend Mr. Braybrooke, but was such a long judgement really necessary? Mrs. Mount joy's speech was among the evening's best, but the hour was late, and hardly allowed for drawn out concurrences.
Published for the Victoria University Students' Association and printed by the Standard Press, 23a Marlon St., Wellington.