Putting things right

To The Editors Of "The N.Z. Tablet' And "Salient"

Sir—I would like to be bring to your notice certain errors which appear in "The tablet" of September 18, 1968, with respect to its report: "Questions on Debate at vic University"(below):

1.	The Victoria University of Wellington's Student Association has never to the belt of my knowledge considered discussing the debate: "That the Pone is a Pill". This is the Tablet's own mistaken conclusion drawn from my comment to its Wellington Correspondent that I had sent a letter relating to the debate, to the V.U.W. Debating Society.
2.	Similarly, the manner of reporting in Salient is not to be discussed by the VUW Students' Association, nor for that matter by any University society. My own personal view, shared it seems by Tablet and Doctor Geiringer, is that the reporting of Dr Geiringer's speech was not an accurate report of what he said. Further, while agreeing that Dr Geiringer was far, far and away the most impressive orator of the day, there were first-rate points made by the other speakers of both sides which were worthy of record. Exclusion of them did not give an overall balance to the report.
3.	I have not at any stage written to the VUW Students Association about the debate. Any criticisms I had of the way Debate was organised was of an order best served by private communication to the President of the Debating Society. The matter which, in my opinion, warranted such a letter was certainly not something that needed to be blown up to University-wide, or for that matter N.Z.-wide proportions.
4.	The summary of my letter to the President of the Debating Society is inaccurate. When asked by the Tablet's correspondent, I said that the Catholic Society had not been informed of the subject and speakers in the debate. I did not give this as the purpose of my letter.
5.	I did not say "that the debate was not arranged in the normal way by the Debating Society's executive. What I did say—as told me by a member of the Debating Society Committee—was that the speakers were not chosen bv the Committee. (It is, I understand, "normal" practice for the Debating Society President to choose speakers when vacation or some other reason prevents the Committee from meeting. My own personal view is that when the particular topic is a sensitive one like this, it would be better to discuss the matter in committer However, there is absolutely no question of a "rigged" debate in this instance as some may infer from Tablet's misquotation.)
6.	The further use of the word "normal" could suggest that consultation with the Catholic Socicty before debating a sensitive Catholic issue is customary at Victoria This is not correct. It is a procedure which is obserrved in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and is a courtesy which having noted the reactions of various Individuals (not all of them Catholics), 1 felt could have been observed before the "Pope is a Pill" Debute. It was the purpose of my letter to the Debating Society to recommend that they consider adopting such a procedure should a similor occasion arise. In the democratic context of the University I am quite free, as anyone is, to make such a recommendation, and the Debating Society is quite free bo accept or ignore the suggestion.
7.	I was not clear, and am still not clear, as to whether the Debate was "The Annual Staff v. Students Debate" or the "Annual Religious Debate". This point I mode to "the Tablet".

These factual innaccuracies are aggravated by the fact that Tablet has not printed the other half of what I said to its correspondent. I stressed several times the fact that if Tablet was going to make any comment on the University scene, it should make lure it fully understand the University way of doing things.

Student journalism, and more especially student debates within the University have a flavour of their own. I pointed out to Tablet that while some Tablet might regard some of Dr Geiringer's words as sheer blasphemy, students (Catholic students as much as any) would consider them as an extremely witty if irreverent speech. And taken in the context in which they were said, the students would be right.

The shame of the Salient report was that the writer recorded Dr Geiringer's words without conveying the atmosphere in which they were spoken.

I regret the use to which my comments were put. The Tablet correspondent anproached me on the subject of the Salient report of the Debate, and after asking me informally a number of questions, mentioned that he would use the material as back-ground for a criticism of Salient's journalism.

I then made the request that seeing as the debate if not the journalism was a strictly domestic University affair, the point should in all fairness be made that Tablet had apnroached me and no vice-versa. This courtesy was not afforded me though an assurance was given that it would.

Finally, while I recognise Tablet's right to criticise Salient (a newspaper which is on public sale outside the University), I feel that to draw the further conclusion that it is "not calculated to improve the already sick image of university students" is both unwarranted and unjust. I regret that my comments could be used to lend credence to this comment.

In the past I have esteemed Tablet's standard of fnurnalivrn and concern on serial issues. In this instance Tablet lays itself open to the same oriticisms it levels against Salient.

Yours faithfully,

T. S. Dyce,

President,

VUW Catholic Society.