Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 15, No. 15. August 7, 1952

The S.G.M

The S.G.M.

Sir,—Because of the precipitate action of the chairman in accepting a motion which in effect gagged the whole discussion of the "germ warfare" question in its early stages, the points which it had been my intention to make at the meeting perforce remained merely ideas. The chairman has therefore himself to thank that these now appear in a more disgruntled form.

Let me state at the beginning that I share Mr. Curtin'a opinion that the Chinese charges are probably lies, and I tend to believe, as contended by Mr. Kevin O'Brien, that they are part of a propaganda campaign. But how best to defeat such intentions than by an impartial enquiry? As I saw it the essential point of Mr. Cur-tin's little homily (pinned on the common-room door before the meeting) was that support of the original motion would, by inference, commit the association to the furtherance of the views of such as Dr. Hewlett Johnson. I entirely disagree. Surely an impartial enquiry would be the best means of revealing the true position of the Dean, and if the charges were proved to be without foundation would greatly assist in reducing whatever Influence he possesses. But in his speech, Mr. Curtin changed his ground and devoted himself to proving that the charges were false. Messrs. Goddard and Foy denied this—all three could well have been ruled out of order.

For the Issue before the meeting was not whether the charges were true or false but whether support for an impartial enquiry would necessarily commit the association to a particular viewpoint. Indeed, it is fatuous for a few hundred, or any number, of students at V.U.C to presume to pass Judgment on a world Issue, and moreover, in less than an hour and on the basis of piecemeal and third-hand "information."

However, as students and citizens, and especially since New Zealand has troops in Korea, we have the right to demand that the veracity of the charges be investigated. And so to Mr. K. O'Brien's argument, which was relevant but negative. The idea that a minority cannot commit a compulsory body is in my opinion, finally untenable. After all, the whole of the functions of this association are determined by a minority—the executive itself is elected by what, on any standards, is a small minority, usually some 500 students, or roughly 25 per cent of the student body. This is a fact, though we may deplore it. It seems that if we are to act in any way it must be by an overall minority, and those who have not the interest or energy to participate in student affairs cannot complaint if their silent inactivity is takne as tacit consent. If they do not agree with any action (e.g., the result of the election of the present executive) let them participate in college affairs and oppose it, if only by voting. And perhaps the type of student activity which Mr. K. O'Brien deprecates would be the best way of rousing the "dull grey Hood." If [unclear: so], it would perform a valuable service.

There was also an inherent contradiction in the Curtin-O'Brien case as presented, the latter maintaining that a minority could not commit the association to any view at all on contentious political matters, and the former using Just such a minority as the meeting constituted to endorse a particular view. For in both putting his motion and in his reply. Mr. Curtin rested his case on the opinion that the Chinese charges were false ("... if you believe they are lies, etc.) and the vote, to my mind, was taken on that basis. Thus. Mr. Curtin used a minority to commit the association to a definite view, albeit, a negative one, on germ warfare, and I can see no difference of principle in that from the action, of the movers of the original motion. The first minority committed the association to the view that an enquiry should be held, and the second minority (admittedly larger than the first, but still a small minority) to the view [unclear: that an] enquiry was not justified, i.e., the mixture as before.

Finally, the question as presented by Massers. Curtin and O'Brien was anachronistic, and they may have the satisfaction of knowing that they are well behind liberal world opinion. For the United States itself has accepted the principle of an enquiry, and in fact proposed the International Committee of the Red Cross, a body which was rejected by China and the Soviet Union. The question is now, therefore, not whether there shall be an impartial enquiry hut what shall be the examining body? The Chinese have made the charges. The onus, just as in a libel suit, is upon the United Nations to demand an impartial investigation, and in this case to propose the tribunal to conduct it. Obviously, such a body must be acceptable to both parties. The Chinese have rejected the Inter, national Committee; the U.N. has rejected the evidence of the "Democratic Lawyers." If the Communists reject all proposed bodies acceptable to the U.N. then we und world opinion generally will draw significant conclusions. And it was to assist in resolving the issue to such terms that the original "germ warfare" motion was passed.

B. M. Brown.