Salient. Victoria University of Wellington Students' Newspaper. Volume 31, No. 25. October 8, 1968
Letters To The Editor
Letters To The Editor
Why Can't We Get It?
Sir I have had it.
I can't stand any more. The mind, I'm afaird, can only take so much of the follicks of this world, and believe me, we have taken so much. God and presumably Louise only know what prossesses this curious young lady to write letters whose (apparently) sole purpose is to carry to the ears of the world the words: coek, bullshit, Frenchies, gutsache, balls, crap, (and occasionally through a mental aberration) twit.
Why a thoroughly nice girl from a nice home, having just left a nice school (bright, forward-looking Onslow College), should find herself compelled to mouth 1950's angry-young-man platitudes in the language of a lower-sixth schoolboy passes my comprehension.
I've just been reading the latest missive, some sort of mountaing in the wake of a God/morality question that was flogged to death in the seventeenth century. Like all the writing of the lady that I've read, it posits non-arguments on a non-question simply because it is her belief that this sort of rubbish coincides with the majorityof student opinion (—and, Heaven knows, she may be right).
I think possibly it's not always necessary for hackneyed left-wingish, libernlish, radicalish opinions that students are meant to have, to be constantly reiterated by some srange bird with an axe to grind. If, on the other hand, she is being "outrageous" only to make me turn the "Letters to the Editor" page very hurriedly every time I see her name there, could I possibly ask her, through this letter, to give it a bit of a rest, Yours in the bowels of Christ.
Sir—In the light ol (i) the overcrowding at the present BNZ facilities and (ii) proposal of the ANZ to extend limited loans to third year students, I suggest that the BNZ monopoly on the campus bo ended. If this monopoly is based on a previous Executive decision then perhaps some energetic execian can reverse the move.
Sir—I was stupefied to read some reactionary drivel in your last issue from a certain Cathy Wylie about the proposed Secondary School Students' Union. Miss Wylie who proudly advertises the fact that she represents an abomination of a critical journal, has obviously no contact with the broad masses of H.V.H.S. or any other secondary school in Welling ton: for if she had she might realise that there is an over-whelming feeling of support for the Union and revulsion against authoritarian Education Department School Board/Staff dictatorship.
For too long, sir have the pupils of our secondary school been oppressed and tricked by the illusion of School Councils and School magazines! For too long have we seen our cherished ideas crushed before our very eyes and our comrades grow bitter and cynical! For too long have the exploited classes been deprived of true democratic representation and democratic ideas! Give us smokes in our classrooms! Give us liquor in our cafes! Cast away our caps and berets, baubles of class exploitation! Discard our school uniforms, symbols of our slavery! Let the dictatorship of the Third Formers reign in peace and happiness, for ever and ever!
Miss Wylie, as an agent of the Oppressors, rejects the fraternal assistance offered by our university comrades in forming our Union, as interference. But the leader of the masses and the oppressed, our great Helmsman Chairman Mao Tse-Tung has brilliantly pointed out to us the importance of cadres in guiding, educating and helping the masses in revolutionary development. Thus our university comrades are clearly only doing their correct socialist duty. I commend a perusal of Chairman Mao's works to Miss Wylie.
Chairman Mao has also described reactionary elements like Miss Wylie in his essay "The Orientation of the Youth Movement": 'How should we judge whether a youth is a revolution-ary … there can be only one criterion … whether or not he is willing to integrate himself with the broad masses … and does so in practice.' Surely, sir, this exposes Miss Wylie's unmittigated gall in attacking the Secondary Students' Union.
P. L. Franks,
Member Editorial Board Pulp,
Hutt Valley High School.
Sir—Cathy Wylie's attitude may be appropriate within the context of her own school—not that pessimism is going to achieve anything there, either—but since it is reasonable to assume that not all boards ol governors, headmasters, teachers and pupils are the same everywhere, hope, optimism, and persistence in the spreading of our ideas and enthusiasm must be the programme for any nondefeatist.
At the start of her letter Miss Wylie seems to be a defeatist, but at the end she shows herself to be a fully-fledged part of the static establishment. I am happy for Cathy in her admiration for her headmaster—I wonder if this feeling ever lets her disagree with him? Censorship, except for the prevention of what in law passes for obscenitv and libel, partial democracy and establishmentised pupils official positions must be deplored.
I don't know what scientific survey informed Miss Wylie that "You can have just as much (my italics) success with words un-published as words printed", but it must be obvious that once all Other avenues have failed, the still unsatisfied grievances-surely she does not deny that some remain unsatitfied—must be aired in print as one means to the end.
One wonders, when noting Miss Wylie's confident use of the word, "we", whether this is an editorial "we" or if she thinks she is an editorial "we" or if she thinks she is speaking for all the pupils of Hutt Valley High School, or of New Zealand. One wonders.
I would maintain that there will be a large amount of apathy as well as resistance, and we shall try to overcome both. The amount of actual resistance appears. I think, disproportionately large to Miss Wylie, as her companions would be sixth-formers, jealous of their privileges in some cases, especially if they are prefcts.
Nevertheless, Miss Wylie is obviously concerned, and lacks only optimism, in my view.
P. D. Zohrab.
Sir—I think it would be a good idea if Mr David Kommn read Mr Kelly's letters and mine for the second time. Then he might agree with me that his remarks were quite unnecessary,