Judges On Trial—

Dear Sir.—I was disappointed with Plunket Medal placings. It seemed the judges were either biased by ideological outlook, or unable to distinguish a moving oration from a well-groomed and fluent recitation. The disappointment probably is accounted for by a combination of these factors.

In all activities some necessarily perform more attractively than others. Some are more gifted with that shade of subtlety and finesse which just makes the difference between talent and skill. As the Very Rev. Father Blake said: "You either haw it or you have not." Either you have a niceness of voice and range of emphasis or you lack them—either possess the power of using emotion to create emotion or don't possess it—are able to fire an audience with the conviction that you believe what you are Baying—that you are in urgent sympathy with something—that you understand someone's aspirations sacrifices and sufferings and possess the sensitivity to respond—you can either do these things or you can't. The difference is the difference between an orator and a lecturer.

J. R. McCreary left his audience moved and convinced that his eulogy of H. E. Holland was motivated by conviction. He had not as had most or the contestants, merely ferretted through a history text for some unusual interesting or arresting fact or figure to talk about. He spoke of a man whom he admired, with whose life he was familiar and whose ideology he had espoused long before he contemplated Plunket Medal. He has casted the acid of social and legal censure as Holland tasted it; he believes in the type of society that Holland fought for—to him basic and essential human rights are as dear as they were to Harry Holland, and McCreary convinced us of this with dignity and drama.

K. B. O'Brien lacked J.R.Mc's power of conviction, lacked his stage presence, was drawn and somewhat nervous and chose less vital material. His speech was interesting and neat and he delivered it with characteristic fluency it was an informative, interesting and well-moulded lecture, which, mouthed by one with McCreary's talent for voice production, could have reached the standard of oratory. But his voice was thin; he was not concerned within himself over the injustice meted out to Alfred Dreyfus; he will have forgotten those historic details in a month's time. His speech contained little drama; his voice did not allow him to affect [unclear: ehfbtlon] without sounding strained; at best he was only intellectually convinced that a wrong had been done. Any intelligent schoolboy could have been trained to deliver that speech the structure of which was attractive and skilful, but the effect of which was intellectual, not emotional.

Judges deserve sympathy. Their's is a difficult task, and whatever conclusion they reach, someone will bellyache over it. My complaint is not so much with the judges—they no doubt did their job honestly and sincerely according to their own lights. But I do think more effort should be made to secure as Judges people who are trained in sorting talent from skill, who are sensitive to those individual subtleties which set the gifted apart from the prosaic, and who may not be unwittingly guilty of allowing their own publicly avowed ideology to perhaps sway their evaluation of the content of a speech. One is tempted to wonder whether the subject matter of Saker's, McCreary's and Collins' speeches prejudiced their chances when a Catholic scholar and a Tory M.P. formed a majority at the judges' table.

Be that as it may, on Saturday night an artist was rated second to a mechanic.

Thank You Please—

Dear Sir,—May I, as an extra-mural but not uninterested spectator at College functions, express my appreciation of the standard of oratory offered last Saturday by Plunket Medal contestants. I regret exceedingly that my "copy" on this occasion was consigned ignominiously to a sub-editor's waste basket. It appeared that the space demanded at present by Parliament precluded more than the briefest mention of academic eloquence.

In his moving vindication of the unfortunate Alfred Dreyfus, Mr. O'Brien deserved high praise for the method employed. With a dramatic presentation of the verdict delivered by the second court martial, he introduced something of the forensic tenseness that must have been felt in that far-off hearing. Then, having captured his audience's attention, ho held it with calm, poised assurance.

Mr. McCreary'3 method was vastly different. Making full use of a magnificent voice, and undoubted histrionic talent, he demanded, rather than subtly plied for, attention. At times he bullied his audience, but with a skill that was easy to admire. Mr. McCreary is an Intensely sincere speaker—his voice may well be heard above the chorus of our time.

It was evident that Miss Cooch's speech had been meticulously prepared. As an essay on Colonel Lawrence it might not have been surpassed, but in stage presentation of the matter. Miss Cooch was not fully at home. In endeavouring to overcome a certain element or nervousness, she appeared almost belligerent in her delivery. The introduction of a little colouring into what was nearly a neutral monotone would have helped her to gain that necessary attribute of all speakers, the feeling of being in touch with her listeners.

AGM Under Fire—

Dear Sir.—At the 1946 AGM of the Stud. Ass amotion was passed "That this meeting expresses its extreme disapproval and condemnation of any attempt to introduce extraenous political issues into the domestic affairs of this Association." Depending on the interpretation placed on it, and even the mover's speeches left much to the imagination, the motion is either trivial or futile, and was unworthy of the support it received.

If by extraneous issues was meant issues which have no remote relationship to student affairs, such as the movements of the Grand Mufti or the subsidy on mangolds, then the motion was trivial and should be rejected without delay. Unfortunately some who believed the motion to be trivial voted in favour of it thereby aligning themselves with those whose support had quite other grounds.

For the motion was more probably intended to afirm that politics are essentially irrelevant to the activities of the Association. Now, the fallacious notion that politics are dangerous stuff, to be removed from safekeeping only once every three years, and then only in approved places, is popular in the minds of the politically immature. It is encouraged, moreover, by that small section whose interests are served by keeping dull minds dull. It is in the historical role of conservatism to relegate politics not only to certain "proper" places and occasions, but to certain chosen persons.

But let us consult recent history as to whether politics should be kept out of the University. Did the students of Fascist-oppressed Europe exclude politics? With their University threatened, many no doubt submitted, murmuring disapproval and condemnation; but a few were alive to the menace, and fought to the death. Such heroism arises not from a moment's thought but the piofoundest conviction, not from an aloofness from politics, but vital concern.

For any satisfactory philosophy will so comprise and integrate politics, ethics, culture, all branches of mental activity, that each will impinge upon every aspect of life. Unless we are still children, it is futile to demand for the Students' Association exemption from political influence.

We have carried a motion which not only can achieve nothing, but which smacks of conservatism. Why did the motion succeed? Because motions violent in expression and nebulous in content almost always succeed. By suitable amendment the notion might have been presented in the slightly less offensive but equally effective form—"That this sort of thing has got to stop!" Fewer questions would have been asked, less time wasted, and a bigger majority assured.

Soh La Me (?)—

Attention. The Glee Club has started again and this time they are catering for full-timers. Thursday lunch-time from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. is the zero-hour and room C6 the place. This year the club is under the capable guidance of Mr. F. Page. You don't have to have a good voice to belong—there are enough people to sing in your ear and drown your feeble efforts. In this club you will learn to appreciate Purcell and Bach's chorales and enjoy singing with a crowd of people who know as little about music as you do. The Glee Club is ambitious too, and hopes to put on an act of "Dido and Aenens" later in the year. For further information contact Jan Caselberg, 26-182, or Gib Bogle, 45-012. and roll along next Thursday and try it out.

* * *

The Rag and the Cloth—

Sir,—In the current issue or "Salient" there appears an incorrect reference to the proposed Wellington Church of England Cathedral, which I consider is out of place in the Ten Point Programme submitted. It is, furthermore, quite contrary to the known intentions of the Cathedral authorities, who have publicly stated on more than one occasion that the building of the Cathedral will not be started for at least five years in order that housing construction might take priority.

I should have thought these facts were common knowledge to "Salient."

The Star—

Dear Sir.—I wish to congratulate "Salient" for publishing the cartoon which appeared in the last issue. Cartoons in general help to brighten up the paper, especially when such healthy sentiments are expressed.

It has been said that the building of a cathedral in five years' time will not interfere with housing situation but I consider it absolutely utopian to expect the housing question to be solved to any great extent within this short time. We can have no objection to the various religious organisations canvassing their members for donations but the thousands of rationalists, atheists, non-conformists, Hindus, Confucians, etc., strongly object to people being coerced by a public body such as the City Council to contribute to an object for which they will never have any use. Many devout Christians are of the opinion that the money could be put to much better use by, say, increasing the salaries of the lower orders of the clergy.

—and the Cross

Dear Sir,—We have in "Salient" a sufficiently strong staff to promote and stimulate student activity in every way. There is a definite improvement in the mode of presentation of material and statement of fact.

To the average reader, by the cartoon on the front page of Vol. 9, No. 8, there would appear something wrong somewhere. There is an utter misstatement of truth. The Anglican Cathedral will NOT be built until the housing shortage is relieved. That has been stated so many times that even a most disinterested person knows it. The Church of England has the welfare of the people at heart and knows that it is not until provision for homes is satisfied that architectural provision for the spiritual needs of the community can be given. In fact, the money collected is invested in Government funds which actually assist the Government in its building programme. The campaign also assists to prevent inflation. When we consider the Government circulated eighteen million pounds in war gratuities, a quarter of a million asked for a prototype of St. Paul's is really insignificant.

The cartoon was not true in fact. J. H. Newman has stated a university to be the home of truth. This utter misstatement must be made correct.