page 4

Salient Not Censured "I Resign'- Blizard

Said Blizard, "I tender this resignation not because a motion I moved has been disagreed with, but because under the circumstances in which I find myself, no other course of action remains open to me."

Blizard had moved a motion censuring Salient for the Editorial in Salient No. 3, in which an attack on Bill Dwyer and Ralph Magnusson included references to their personal backgrounds.

Blizard emphasized that he strongly disagreed with the type of personal attack made by the Editorial.

His motion was defeated by seven votes to five.

The meeting went on to consider aspects of the Editorial and the action that should be taken by Executive in regard to it.

Publications officer Preston quoted New Zealand Journalists' Association Executive member Gunn, who believed that newspapers should avoid referring to a person's past record unnecessarily. The action for Executive to take was to express "disapproval" of G.W.R.P.'s editorial.

It was asked how much of the Editorial Mr. Gunn had read. Apparently only a few sentences had been perused by him, Preston agreed.

Cathie Benefield believed that students' only recourse was to Executive, therefore it was necessary for Executive to censure.

Roger Pitchforth's opinion was that the issue was one for individual students to judge, all Executive could do was to say they dissapproved and that "as the Student's Association we prefer that such matters be kept out of our newspaper." He thought that the use of emotion in the article was not justified.

Cultural Affairs Officer Jill Shand stated that the article had been shown not libellous as it had been checked by a lawyer. Because of Salients right to freedom of press Executive could not censure it. She did not doubt that the article was unethical but it was the custom for such reports to be written in the press today.

She suggested that the Salient editorial staff would resign if censured and although Preston denied this, her feelings were that the paper had too high a standard for it to be censured for a single lapse.

Summing up, Blizard stated that he did not want to curb Salient, but that he felt a control on its ethics ought to be enforced.

"There is a difference between accepting the past and having it thrown in your face."

It was the duty of Executive to protect members of the Association against the type of smear that the editorial had perpetrated, he believed. If Executive would not do this, he felt that he could no longer remain on it.