Jill Again

Sir,—It is no doubt admirable of Mr. Peter J. Blizard to spring to the defence of Miss Shand, so scurrilously attacked by "R.J.B." in a recent editorial. Unfortunately in describing the editorial as "misrepresentational and factually distorted" he fails to notice that neither himself nor "R.J.B." are dealing in facts, but in opinions.

The editorial in question was neither misrepresentational nor factually distorted. In "recapturing briefly" (surely Mr. Blizard means "recapitulating") he mentions the editorial's arguments in an unfavourable light, then, instead of "examining these assertions in the light of what really occurred" as he sets out to do, he presents a list of his own opinions on the matter.

The "logical collateral" (nice phrase that, if you know what it means) of "R.J.B.'s" argument, is not that senior students possess any more "ability" to handle Exec, posts, but that their greater maturity (in some cases) and experience in university affairs is probably better qualification than a first-year student's keenness.

In stating that Exec, represents "most shades of student opinion from the radical to the reactionary" Mr. Blizard appears unaware, perhaps for obvious reasons, that conservatives generally like to be considered "liberal" or "progressive" in their opinions. Some of the "radical" students of this university might differ with him as to the broadness of Exec, representation of student opinion.

The arguments of "R.J.B.'s" editorial remain valid, and while not wishing in any way to deprecate the work done by Miss Shand in her post. I would suggest that in future she choose someone more competent as a logician, a writer and a judge of situations than Mr. Blizard to defend her.

It would seem, however, that Blizard's motives were rather to defend an Exec, decision that justly deserved severe criticism, than to be kind to Miss Shand. Who in any case was not attacked personally. It is evident that the whole principle of co-opting members to Exec, should come under immediate review.