Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 27, No. 14. 1964.

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Washday and the Precedent

Sir,

Your leading article "Washday Fuss Unseemly" bristled with half truths and curious conclusions. To seize on just one; you said that "a further undesirable precedent set by the incident was that of political interference in educational matters." Mr. Kinsella can be accused of nothing of the kind. He was following a number of precedents involving such "interference" from both parties. Indeed, when the education system is State-run from kindergarten to university, is it "interference" or just the legitimate exercise of ministerial authority? A minister who failed to interfere would probably be accused of the gravest negligence.

There is no firmer precedent that I could quote than one set by Mr. Kinsella's predecessor-but-one in the National Government, the Hon, (now Sir) R. M. Algie. On assuming the office of Minister of Education in 1949, Mr. Algie immediately withdrew the journal "Education." which was issued free to teachers. It was a lively journal brought out, like "Washday at the Pa." by School Publications and printed by the Government Printer. Mr. Algie considered that it was a too-radical publication, subverting the teaching profession and as there had been a "decisive mandate against radicalism" in the election, he felt he was quite justified in withdrawing it.

The decision was a purely Ministerial one. Deputations—one led by Victoria academics—were told that the Minister had made up his mind and that was the end of the matter.

Mr. Kinsella must surely have felt confident with such a stand from a previous National minister behind him. I am etc.,

R. W. Heath

Washing - up Washday

Sir,—The action of Mr. Kinsella in withdrawing "Washday At The Pa" is disturbing for deeper reasons than you give. You suggest these reasons in your last paragraph when you say that, in Maori-Pakeha relationships. "We are not quite sure where we are going."

Our trouble is this: that we who dimly and fearfully guess at our own future, are taking the Maoris with us.

"Washday At The Pa" shows us those qualities of Maori life which we admire and even envy. Happiness love, enthusiasm are shown to us, but in shabby surroundings. We panic. Are we not fruitfully occupied in tidying up these surroundings? And are we not wondering that, at the same time, we might be smothering these qualities? Who wants to hear white children taunt the Maoris with their shabbiness when he also perceives his own unease at the education which teaches them to despise shabbiness so much that it is the only thing they can see?

Mr. Kinsella removed this book not for political reasons, not because it could offend, not because children are cruel. These are the superficial, misleading and therefore false reasons. He removed it as an expression of the troubled conscience of the white man and the anxious perplexity of the Maori, who has no choice but to follow him. And he removes the book not from the conditioned, unwilling gaze of the adults, but from the clear vision of our children, so that they will no longer spill the beans, and taunt their Maori counterparts and say what we hate to hear—"Come on Maori boy—be like us."—I am, etc.,

Robert Oliver

Incompetency

Sir.—I was astounded at the performance of certain members of the Victoria delegation to Winter Council.

The flippancy of Mr. Robins during discussion appalled other universities delegates and amazed me. Sure, have a bit of levity but don't overdo it. The suggestion that Palmerston North was a suburb of Wellington was greeted with cries of astonishment and derision.

I would say to Mr. Robins that if he had travelled by second-class rail to Auckland. Instead of flying, he would have soon discovered the fallacy in this supposition.

It seemed apparent from certain of Mr. Robins's remarks that takeover bids are in the air; Auckland is making a take-over bid for Wellington and Mr. Robins tried to make a take-over for NZUSA president by having a treasurer's veto on all NZUSA expenditure.

His abuse of his position as NZUSA treasurer and leader of the Victoria delegation, although only just faintly amusing the first two or three times, had rather palled towards 3.30am on the Monday morning of Winter Council:

"Mr. Chairman, as leader of the Victoria delegation . . ."

"Mr. Chairman, as NZUSA treasurer . . ."

I suggest that at the next council meeting Mr. Robins go as NZUSA treasurer only and that Victoria should send another more competent person as a member of the delegation.

In spite of Mr. Robins, the Victoria delegation was able through the personal contacts that they made to get its remits passed. This was most evident in the passing of the many international motions which Victoria moved. Auckland seconded most of these.

Mr. Taylor impressed the other delegates most—in fact he not Mr, Robins, "led" the delegation.

Many delegates were keen to see the female wonder of Victoria. Miss Sutch. One or two people displayed their continued interest but the majority were disappointed. I gather that Miss Sutch did not have a very high opinion of the NZUSA dinner.

The observers observed, and one of them chased. It was a waste of time accrediting most of them. That's about all that can be said for them.

All in all a more shabby performance I have yet to see.—I am, etc.,

R. J. Kortere

This letter was received signed by an obviously fictitious "R. J. Kortere". Consequently, on our customary policy it could not be printed. However, Mr. J. B. Mc-Kinlay, upon reading the letter, felt in agreement with the sentiments expressed and volunteered to have his name appended to the letter.

Students Association President Tom Robins, commenting on the contents, writes "Thank you, Mr. McKinlay, for your comments."

Apartheid Stand

Dear Sir,

I have read the article on South African Apartheid policy in the September 7 issue. The headline, "every New Zealand University student is asked to boycott South African goods." printed in such prominence on the back page of the issue, is obnoxious and indicates tendencies which modern education should have eliminated.

The gullibility of the reading public is well known. It is not limited to those without University education, and every newspaper has a moral obligation not to misrepresent situations, or make statements insinuations etc. which are easily misunderstood. Yet this blatant request is made on the back page of the issue.

I call it a request, but it is framed pointed and emotionally overtoiled so as to almost ensure the reader's reply There is no reason why stated with it. There is one, but the lazy readers would not sec it.

The Salient should have noted its report of the NZUSA meeting on page 10, saying "it was resolved that the boycott should be on a personal level." A nation-wide boycott is not a matter of principle as the political editor suggests on page six. We certainly do not implicitly condone apartheid by not having a boycott. Neither is it prostitution because it looks like profit comes from something that is immoral. As the Massey delegate at the NZUSA meeting said. "the natives would be the first to suffer from a boycott."

This headline, by means of the slanted presentation often found in the poorer popular Press exhorts man's action and with it man's feeling. It takes advantage of susceptible people. It offends against individualism, promotes further prejudice and clouds the intellectual reasoning of which we seem so proud. Everyone should be assisted to a free unbiased view of the matter, not pushed.

Such methods for gaining support of views held by a few should not be used by a University newspaper. I am, etc,

N. B. Dunning

The statement gave prominence to a notable policy decision of the official national student body, of which you are presumably a member. It was not just the view of a small group of Salient writers: Some of us, in fact, are uncertain as to the merit of a boycott. But the best way to stimulate thought, discussion and rational decisionmaking is by the vigorous presentation of a case: Clothing views in cotton wool in deference to the "gullibility of the reading public" is likely to befuddle any issue-Ed.

Political Editor comments: Despite Mr. Dunnings protestations. I still consider the refusal to profit from a system of oppression a matter of principle. As I said in my article, the practical effects of a New Zealand boycott would be negligible, so the question of who gets hurt most is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I am convinced it would not be the Africans—and It will take more than the authority of a Massey NZUSA delegate to dissuade me from this.

NB—For a discussion of the boycott issue, we refer readers to an article by Colin Legum and Anthony Sampson, and the correspondence following, in the British "Observer" of Sunday. April 12 and 19, 1964. Copies are filed in the periodicals room of the library.

Pen Pal

Sir.—I am a 17-year-old American student. I am writing to you because I would like to have a pen pal in New Zealand—and as I didn't know how else to go about it. I am writing to you. Perhaps someone in your class would like to write to me.

I am interested in motion pictures, records, reading and learning about different countries. I'd like to write to a boy between 18 and 22. But if any girl would like to correspond with me, I'll be happy to write back. I realise that you have much more important things to do, but I would appreciate it, if you could find me some pen pals.

Audrey Weiss.

975 East 179 Street, Bronx 60, New York City, United States of America.

Educated Morons

Dear Sir,—Your page one article shows you to be ignorant of the New Zealand constitution and to have missed the main thing wrong with Mr. Kinsellas decision.

If the Education Department bans "Washday." the responsibility falls like an oven door on the Minister. The trouble is that it should have been none of the Department's business in the first place. Whether a certain book is to be used in the classroom should be for the teacher alone to decide. For a Government to make a blanket decision is ridiculous because it assumes that all children are the same in their reactions to it. Publications could be banned for much more dubious political reasons than those advanced by the Minister.

If Mr. Kinsella continues to treat teachers like morons he will have more trouble with recruitment. There just aren't sufficient educated morons.

Dave Wright

We Hear Tell of a budding zoology student to whom the Internal Affairs Department gave a rare seagull to measure up and draw. Student put bird on table to start work but student's dog got in first. The species is now even more rare.