Our Editorials

To some of us the word "censorship." even if printed half-way down a column of small type, springs to the eye as though in letters a foot tall. And rightly so. We guard jealously what freedom we have. So when we read in "The Critic" (Otago) that one of their editorials has been censored, we are smartly on the qui-vive.

Fortunately this case does not contain all the unpleasant elements usually associated with the word. The editorial was written by a student and censored by a students representative; for Otago University has its own censor the chairman of the Students Association Publications Committee.

The editorial, entitled "Commercialised Emotion," criticised the innovation of displaying patriotic pictures on the screens of local theatres while the National Anthem was played. The article contained no attack on the monarchy itself. The censor's objections were that the leader, being unsigned, might be interpreted as official student opinion; and that it was inexpedient to publish such an article on the eve of Capping, when the university needed the public's good will. The Editor replied that it was impossible to assess student opinion, that it should be obvious that one man's views could not represent those of the body of students, and that the expediency argument meant pandering to the public.

It is wise to be suspicious of the word "expediency"; but V.U.C. especially has learnt how easily a hostile press can misrepresent the university. It is the difficult task of a student publication to encourage controversy while giving the daily press as little as possible to bite on. It is for this reason that "Salient" has each leading article signed, the subscriber expressing his own views and making no claim to represent "the student body." Previously the Editor of "The Critic" had vainly advocated the system of signed editorials; the recent experience should convince his opponents of the dangers of the present method.

An N.Z.U. Press Bureau message on the incident quotes an editorial in "Canta." from which the following passage indicates well what a university's attitude to censorship should be:—

"Unlike our daily papers, university papers are not subject to the control of vested or party interests. We can express our own views and are thus more likely to be sincere and attain some standard of truth. . . . We do not demand the right to outrage public opinion whenever possible, but we must be independent and allowed to publish our convictions."

Let us offend the public as little as is consistent with a devotion to truth, which is no respecter of public opinion.

——H.W.G.