Irregulations?

Dear sir,—This a reply to the attack on Mr. Bollinger and myself in the last issue of Salient (No. 4 pg. 3) entitled "In re the Socialist Club, the Executive v Two meeting Organisers."

You say, if the Executive had insisted on us putting our assurance in writing, no confusion would have been possible. That is not correct, because we submitted that talking on the Waterfront Emergency Regulations included the background of these Regulations and the reason why they were gazetted.

You also state: "the speakers trespassed" on their subject. If they did then why didn't Messrs O'Brien and O'Brien stop the meeting, as the Executive had previously voted them that they might?

The article says "it is not possible to exonerate the Socialist Club representatives after hearing their attempts at explanation." The executive had far more to explain than us. They just haven't the moral backbone to come out openly against the regulations as have subsequent student meetings. It just so happens that the Executive does not represent the student opinion on this matter. In fact they condone the Regulations by acting like student policemen. "We'll let you have free speech, but we'll control it for you."

The Executive are elected, not as college prefects, but as a body to protect students' interests and to preserve their hard won freedoms. Contrast this shameful incident with a more recent meeting the Socialist Club had in the main college building. Mr. Barnes spoke to 130 students—there were no emergency meetings of the Professorial Board, and we weren't asked to give assurances.

Students will know what to do with the present Executive at the next elections in June.