Plunket Soc.

Sir-Your reporter is to be commended for having attended the Plunket Medal contest this year, even though the significance of that event appears to have eluded him.

It is unfortunate though, that he did not see fit to quote my remarks with regard to the context within which they were uttered. At no stage did I state that oratory was a dying art. I acknowledged that some people hold that view, but I then contended that the contestants would demonstrate that evening that "far from dying, oratory was a vibrant living art which would continue so long as man sought to persuade his fellowmen by the spoken word."

Your reporter accuses me of promulgating "the Great Plunket Medal Myth' (whatever that may mean) and adduces my comparison of the contest with any other contest in the world in support of his accusation. I can only assume that he means that he knows of another oratory contest in comparison with which the quality of the Plunket Medal contest becomes mythical. It is strange that he did. not refer to such a contest.

My remarks were further misrepresented by your reporter when he implied that in speaking of past contests I referred only to the winners. That is not so. I stated that: "in all walks of life you will find, if not a Plunket Medal winner, then a Plunket Medal contestant; for such is the standing which the contest enjoys, that there is almost as much prestige attached to having competed in it as there is to having won it" Your reporter appears to have misinterpreted my references to the standing of the contest and the prestige attached to competing in it as applying only to its winners; whereas it is quite clear (and was equally clear when I originally made the remarks) that I was referring to all those who had ever competed for the Medal. Your reporter would no doubt dispute the standing and prestige of the contest. He is entitled to take that view, but in so doing he is flying in the face of the considerable student and public opinion which holds the contest in high esteem, not to mention the considered and sometimes expert views of all those who have ever been concerned with public speaking contests in this city.

In conclusion, it seems to me that your reporter considered that every speaker at this year s contest was an orator par excellence. It will be recalled that one of the criteria I named whereby it might be determined whether oratory had been heard was whether the audience felt antagonistic towards a speaker. From the tenor of his account it would seem that your reporter was deeply moved. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the obvious effect that the contest has had on him, together with his evident disgust at the exposition of "liberal values" will impel him to defend his particular cause (whatever it might be) in next year's contest. Perhaps then he could make up, as a speaker, for his deficiencies as a reporter.