page 2

Editorial

Opinions expressed in Salient are not necessarily those of VUWSA.

The last issue of Salient was a day late. Publication was postponed to allow a special executive meeting to consider the possible deletion of part of an article included in the issue.

The article, which was subsequently published untouched, referred to a proposal from a private firm to assume control of Focus, the N.Z.U.S.A. magazine.

Mr Gerard Curry, President of the Students' Association, said that had he all the facts at his disposal at the executive meeting he would not have ordered the passages deleted.

That Mr Curry did, is an indictment of some of the advice which was offered to him. That the major proponent of the advice to censor Salient was the publications officer demonstrates the latter's inability to view executive press relationships in their full perspective. The publications officer has traditionally been the one voice that publications such as Salient can rely upon to present an enthusiastic defence of their efforts. The reluctance Mr Thomson has shown to undertake this responsibility, has not gone un noticed.

But back to Tuesday night. The editor of Salient stopped publication and an executive meeting was set for the following day.

At this meeting a bare quorum of eight executive members decided to make no recommendation to Salient and the issue was printed forthwith.

While one can understand but not necessarily agree with the attitude of the principals of Industrial Communicators in their bid to censor Salient, the actions of the editor of Focus, Mr H. Rennie, deserve censure.

Any attempt to censor Salient on grounds that are not valid in a court of law should be stopped with the decisiveness demonstrated at the executive meeting at the S.R.C. meeting on the Friday.

The chances of this incident being relegated to obscurity have been hampered by Mr Rennie's apparent facility to perpetuate student quarrels. The only thing worse than a politician who takes himself seriously is a student politician labouring under the same handicap. Mr Rennie made an admittedly heavy handed satirical article on Focus into a potential law suit involving an exchange of correspondence over a three-week period from three different lawyers, on many varied grounds, and before making any sort of personal approach. So much for student solidarity.

But the question of Focus remains. What will happen to it? The last few weeks have demonstrated that if the student body wishes to have any say at all in the development of their magazine, they had better be quick, lest a handful of senior students shape it to fit their own destiny.

An editorial scholarship from Rothmans is made available annually.