Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. The Newspaper of Victoria University College. Vol. 20, No. 4. May 3, 1956

Mr. Bertram in China

Mr. Bertram in China

Mr. James Bertram, senior lecturer in English at VUC, is at this moment in China. To many students the change in decision by the College Council whereby he was eventually able to make the trip may have seemed a reasonable conclusion to a rather pointless controversy.

But the controversy was not pointless, and the matter has not yet received the full airing which it deserves. Many Questions still remain unanswered. Why was permission refused in the first place? What made the council change their minds? Was the entire affair influenced by political pressure and motives?

Until the answers to these questions arc given doubts must still exist in the minds of students. Has the College Council maintained the long tradition of VUC as strong protectors of academic rights gained during such famous controversies as the von Zedlitz case, or are they mere acceptors of political directives?

It is believed that in reapplying for permission to visit China Mr. Bertram stressed his importance to the success or failure of the trip as the only member able to fluently speak the Chinese language and thus make personal contact with the Chinese—a door not easily open to the other travellers.

It is still unknown whether it was this which was responsible for the reversal of the former decision or whether the publicity given to the affair by this paper (subsequently quoted in the downtown press) was the major factor.

Whatever the cause, it is known that the decision was made by hurried letter and telephone conversations initiated by the Chairman of the Council, Mr. T. D. M. Stout, and the Principal of the College, Dr. J. Williams.

Professor Buchanan did not re-apply for permission to join the delegation. Obviously, since he had no grounds for re-application apart from those he had originally tendered and which the Council had not seen fit to accept, a further try would have been equally unrewarding. But once again the reasons for the previous refusal are unknown.

Until they appear in the form of a public statement we can only assume that they are such that the Council cannot face up to their due responsibility of telling the staff and students of this University the reasons for their decision.

Therefore we claim that the reasons are politically based and thus an infringement of the basic rights of freedom and thought - cherished academic rights so long enjoyed by members of this University.

The College Council must give an answer to this accusation and realize that if this information had been given before it would have saved a vast amount of needless controversy.