Individual confined

Sirs, —Your editorial about Halls of Residence was too kind. It does not bring out the point that they are funda-mentally impersonal places, thoroughly suited to the sub-merging of the individual in the mass. They are nothing more than a conglomeration of sub-standard bed-sitters, plus common room and facilities for preparing lumpy porridge, incredible rice puddings and suspensions of mince in large amounts of water. They have none of the advantages of flats or houses, The individual is confined either to the obscurity of his cell or to the anonymity of the Common Room. In many institutions he is denied even this at certain times of the day, as cleaners come first. He is tied to a fairly rigid schedule, as he must eat when food is provided or see his money wasted, and he must sleep and study at times determined by other people (noise-makers, reserved for those who wish to read the thoughts of the current idol (be he Jesus, Mao or von Clausewitz). But if an Englishman's home is a castle, a Hall of Residence must be cleaners, etc.)

Elsewhere, institutions such as these might be called People's Educational Communes (or Seminaries), and the Common Rooms might be heaven indeed. A name such as "No. 2 Barracks" is more honest in its own context than say. "Holyoake Hall."

Also mis-named are Common Rooms, which would be better termed Lowest Common Denominator Rooms, as they almost inevitably give rise to a lowest common denominator mentality. I can just see it; a dozen Weir Houses competing with each other to see who can make the biggest fools of themselves, (I have even attended a largely residential university (overseas) where exactly this happened.) In ten years time the occupants can move on to the Clubs, Rotary, etc., where they can continue the image building: meanwhile university social life will be focussed around trivia. Perhaps the title Hall of Residence is not after all, so bad as it can invoke the echoes of Rule Britannia, marmalade and jam. Perhaps smoking jackets could be issued.

The worst aspect of the University's present plan is that it brings to a central place in University life organisations that are fundamentally anti-University. If we suppose for the moment that a University is a place dedicated to The Search for Truth, we ought to ask whether those organisations that will provide the "home" atmosphere for the students are similarly dedicated. These organisations being Churches, the answer is clearly no. Churches are not interested in The Search for Truth: they found their truths long ago. Further, their truths are arrived at by revelation, a method that has been discarded, I believe, even by psychologists. Of course, a university is not really dedicated to The Search for Truth, but the embracing of the Churches is going to make it harder for it to attempt to be so. The present plan can only lead to increased Church influence at a time when Church influence is thank God, declining. And such an influence will, of course, be bought with someone else's money.

One further point, often advanced by apologists for Halls of Residence, deserves mention. Though Halls are generally not a Good Idea, they are a good idea for firstyear students 'so goes the argument) who are unstable, lack maturity, etc.. etc. This argument Is the least logics of all, for If something is bad for an "average" person. It is obviously worse for those who are impressionable, and whose future outlook may be determined by it. But such is the poverty of the arguments for Halls of Residence.

David Wright

Drama workshop

Sirs,—I would like to endorse the opinion expressed by Miss Stevens in her review of, "Lady From The Sea" in the last edition of Salient, that "... a drama workshop is needed where potential and aspiring actors can learn the skills ox the craft before being inflicted on a paying audience."

This would go a long way towards removing a distressing tendency of Drama Club productions — the appearance of the same actors and actresses and few new faces.

Also a plea for more topical, contemporary drama. Furthermore, we have been subjected to this mood of morbid introspection in Drama Club productions for too long.

Viet vote

Sirs,—Your leader of August 8 has prompted me to question the feeling of the mass of VUW students and staff toward the Vietnam conflict. I believe that at present none can objectively say the majority (large or small) of the student body are either for or against American involvement; whether they are pacifists, or merely indifferent toward the whole business.

It may be said that Salient Is a reliable barometer of student feeling. Is it? Our paper reports that numbers in the recent M. Taylor-Clifford march "have been hailed as increased anti-New Zealand participation feeling on campus" (quoted leader). But is there anybody on campus who is in a position to make such a "hailing"?

Again: a number of sheets were distributed in the cafe and elsewhere, in the period immediately preceding the American envoys visit. These implied that there would be protesters marching "on behalf" of the university.

What can we do about this? I suggest a referendum whereby every person on campus would have an opportunity to register his or her opinion.

Certain difficulties in pro-cedure would immediately arise, notable among them being the methods of organisation, and thereby the validity of the results. But there will always be sceptics, no matter the issue. An effici-ently organised referendum would be accepted by most of VUW as a realistic assess-ment of student feeling.

Like many students, I can see a danger of truth being clouded by perhaps unfounded speculation and appeal to emotion.

H. F. KING

'Insight' again

Sirs,—Recently Salient devoted an editorial and another article to the resignation of the Editor of INSIGHT, the Auckland University Catholic Society's quarterly. In these it was sug-gested that the editor was forced to resign following a letter from Archbishop Liston who, as you quote, deprecated some of the contents of issue 4. The Archbishop did not ask for the resignation of the editor nor did his letter lead Catholic Society to ask for It. You would do better to accept the editor's own explanation that he resigned because of a shortage of time and uncertain health.

The Salient editorial stated that there is little hope that "the balanced and open-minded approach will continue". As present editor I will do my best to see that It does continue and in fact, develop, since Insight is still in its infancy.

Jantnka Chuml

(Former Assistant Editor)

Inspiration

Sirs,—I think the man who writs the letters should write the rest of your paper.

Bill Logan

Two minds

Sirs, While I admire your columnists' wit, I hardly envy them their originality. The two comments made about me in the "On the Grapevine" column over your last three issues—that I was "so left that I was right" and that T "sat right down and wrote myself a letter"—are both verbatim transcripts of my own descriptions of myself in casual cafeteria conversation

While my remarks may go some way to prove the old axiom that no one hates me better than myself. I do feel that if your columnists are to avoid charges of plagiarism they should acknowledge the sources of their quotations. I trust that similar comments on other people in your column are not also the results of eavesdropping.

Owen Gager

Great minds think alike.— Ed.