[unclear: Asumble] Reply

[unclear: ncerning] the letter headed "Mountain [unclear: ness]" published in last weeks issue of Salient [unclear: /79)], we — those responsible for the letter, [unclear: d] like to take this opportunity to apologise [unclear: enise], Vicky and especially Rob for any [unclear: rks] contained in this letter which they found [unclear: sive].

[unclear: e] would also like to assure Robert Moes that remarks were not intended to offend but written in a flippant, light-hearted spirit (as [unclear: he] whole letter), and we really do appreciate [unclear: rt's] voluntary work on behalf of the ski [unclear: and] its members.

Club Out in Open

[unclear: a] behalf of the Victoria Ski Club committee [unclear: in] answer to allegations made in a recent [unclear: nt] "Letter to the Editor", I should like to [unclear: y] certain points relating to the bookings of [unclear: uapehu] Lodge during the August University [unclear: avs].

[unclear: previous] years bookings have been [unclear: cted] to 32 people (the present capacity of [unclear: odge]) however this year we managed to [unclear: ge] accomodation for 7 extra members with [unclear: her] club on the mountain. This, we thought [unclear: d] be appreciated due to the likelihood of a [unclear: ski] season and the fact that a lot of [unclear: bers] can only ski during the vacations.

[unclear: okings] were therefore accepted from 39 people, and 2 extra people told that they could stay provided they slept in the mezzanine area. Bunks in the Vic Lodge were allocated on a first in first served basis until the 32 positions were filled. The last seven people were told, before they went, that they were to stay with the other club.

On arrival at Ruapehu the trip leader was faced with the unfortunate situation that those people originally told to go to the other Lodge decided that they weren't going. This, of course, led to a decision being made to send one group of people to the other Lodge against their wishes.

In my opinion any bad feelings caused by this action due to the selfish attitudes of a small minority of our membership and not by either the Booking Officer or the trip leader.

It is hoped that in future if members have problems or feel that they have been badly treated they will approach a committee member and not resort (at least in the first instance) to unnecessarily harsh written attacks.

A Form of Racism

I was interested to read of your newspaper Salient and Truth's comments on your July 8th issue. Not having read any of your issues. I am unable to comment on Truth's accusations, but a roll call vote on U.N. Resolution 3379 gave a verdict that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. This vote was taken on 10.11.1975, meeting 2400 Report A/10320. These facts are from pages 173-179, U.N. publication "Resolutions of the General Assembly as its Thirtienth Regular Session, 16 September — 17 December 1975, (U.N. press release G.A./5438.) Available from NZ Foreign Affairs.

I would strongly advise you to read a book by well known Jewish writer Arthur Koestler called "The 13th Tribe" priced about $3. My copy is a Picador book by PAN.

The Zionists do not like this book, and although Arthur Koestler was one of their favourite sons, they've be down on him since he had this book published.

No Concern for Students

I would like to draw attention to the unreasonable dictatorial attitude of a certain D.G. Trow, perhaps the most misplaced University staff member in the Accountancy Department. Owing to his inability to comprehend the repercussions of his actions on students and his unconcerned attitude, many academic careers and degree hopes have been shattered and left in shambles. I am referring to the way he deals with students who wish to sign up for an extra course (more than 36 credits a year) or who wish to change courses either at the beginning or mid year period. His attitude of treating every student in the same curt, couldn't care less way, leaves a lot to be desired for a head of a department who controls the destiny of all the students either planning ahead or wishing to take the shortest possible-time to complete their degrees. He fails to realise that each student can only be judged individually according to personal academic record and other related circumstances, indeed he fails to even look at a student's academic record personally let alone inquire about related circumstances e.g. students working during term to meet living expenses or family or personal problems affecting studies.

To him a student's grade is the sole determinant for a decision. He places his own self interests before anything else often saying he has five minutes to spare and brusquely orders students out of his office without even bothering to consider their explanations. He seems to think his job is to turn out zombies who cannot even decide if they can handle a few more credits. After all a student is here to learn and when we take an extra course or change one does not matter. After all I think most students who are concerned about their academic progress are at least matured enough to decide for themselves.

If he has so little time to spare for his students and if he finds concerning himself with their welfare so abhorrent why not delegate the task to someone who can spare the time and is interested enough to do a good job. His attitude has caused a lot of students frustration and lost time. Often the timing of courses are crucial and can mean finishing a degree a year earlier or later, and that means additional expenses, lost employment opportunities as well as disrupting other plans. All I ask is that he takes more time to study individual cases or else let someone else who is interested do the job.

Concerned.

It is 2 am and I am learning to type, so I thought I would write a letter to you. How are you,7...

It's Sunday morning and I've just been glancing at your rag (sorry-your newspaper) and I happened to see who's standing for President next year...I suppose by the time you print this some idiot will have been elected. Looks like Hobsons choice to me; God! Merv will run rings around Sowman! Very wisely he wouldn't speak to Massof, and he wouldn't take part in a drinking horn with Mike McAleer either! How can such a pack in incompetents stand for such a position purporting to represent students?

Andrew Tees may have been a bit of an amateur at the start, but at least he had a necessary knowledge of all the issues concerned. What the hell does Phil Sowman know about Education issues for instance? What did he do for the successful Education Fightback campaign? Sweet F... a... Caroline Massof is unpopular and immature and from all accounts McAleer has a slight problem with C2 H5 OH.

Looking at the middle pages I notice that Simon Wilson, that well known communist has been elected President of NZUSA to represent purportedly 40,000 students! The Wellington Marxist Leninist organization will be pleased no doubt, and Merv and Rob will be pleased because they can claim that they are merely ignoring 'commie' stirrers when students groan about the new TSG.

How can a guy get elected to represent students through NZUSA, having been rejected by' a majority of voters at an Executive Election beats me. NZUSA must be bloody hard up. Perhaps it's time Victoria withdrew. Obviously there is no democracy in NZUSA as I am 100% sure that Victoria students are very unlikely to want him for National President if they don't want him for their own President.

A very sorry state of affairs when such cretins are allowed to represent students. Perhaps Mr Wilson and/or Chris Gosling would like to render us an explanation of this travesty of democracy — no doubt Wilson's contorted logic can cope. Yes...Mr Beach I demand that you print this letter and refer it to the President of NZUSA for comment. By the way I think Chris and Grant Liddell have done a good job this year.

page 16

The Facts

In a recent article in Salient entitled "Abortior attacked" the writer cited "a scientific study of 3,500 cases of rape over a 10 year period in the Minneapolis-St. Paul areas revealed not one case of pregnancy. (The Educator, September 1979.)"

It may interest your readers to know that all available evidence indicates that this survey is completely fabricated. When "The Educator" was written to, asking for details of who conducted the survey, they replied that "the information you requested is no longer in our files." The only names the article includes are those of a Dr William Walsh, M.D. of Camarillo, California and Dr Herbert Ratner, M.D. Director of Public Health at Oakpark, Illinios. Both of these men were written to in order to establish who undertook the survey. Only Walsh replied. He is the only William Walsh listed for Camarillo, California. He says in reply to researcher, Roger John, of Pittsburgh (letter dated July 9, 1973) "...at no time have I investigated the subject of rape in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area". He goes on to admit that he is "very active in pro-life work" and suggests that Dr Paul Marx of Collegeville, Minnesota, may have information.

Marx in reply to Johnson, letter 22 August 1973 says, "I do not know the original study to which you refer. I doubt whether there is one." This fictitious study has been used many times by SPUC to support their extreme anti-women stand that even rape should not be grounds for abortion. To me, the use of lies to substantiate their argument says a lot about its validity.

Pity we can do without

In reply to all those letters published in Salient this year opposing Cay Rights, especially to the letter written by 'Middleground' (Salient 3 Sept.), sure gays need understanding, just like any other human beings. Pity we do not need. And as for Gay Movements, homosexuality is a fact, and will exist whether there are gay movements or not.

Just because 'Middleground' finds '...the act biologically and morally objectionable', doesn't mean that he/she has to force his/her morals upon others. I am not writing this to promote homosexuality, nor to push my views, but I'm tired of people putting gays (me included) down because they can't hack it. I'm also tired of them assuming that I'm heterosexual. When someone stands up and says that they are gay, others (straights) tell them not to flaunt it — it's okay to be gay, as long as nobody knows about it. But heterosexuals seem to be able to do anything they want.

As for Freud, much of his work is now largely outdated, and based on studies of his patients (i.e. 'sick' people), and not all homosexuals are sick, and neither are all heterosexuals. I don't know why when the word homosexual or gay is mentioned, that most people automatically associate it with men. Not all gays are men!

Homosexuals are not individuals who are stunted in the 'natural' progression of human sexuality. And recent findings by American sex therapists. Masters and Johnson, in their latest book 'Human Sexual Response', do not reveal that homosexuals are stunted in the progression of sexuality. You state that 'they found that almost 90% of the homosexuals who were willing to attempt to overcome their psychological barriers, could do so'. Where you got the figure 90% from, God only knows, as it is nowhere mentioned. Masters and Johnson don't list a success rate for conversions (to or from homosexuality), but do have a known failure rate of 35%, which is not expected to exceed 45% when all the follow-ups have been completed. (Time, April 23, 1979). 55% doesn't seem to be much of a conversion rate. The cancer cure rate is higher.

Sure human sexuality can be confusing, but has it ever occured to anyone that this may be because it is assumed that people are straight and should grow up straight, and that some would be better suited (psychologically — for themselves and others) for a gay role than a straight one. I, for one, am better suited to be gay than straight, and know how depressing the issue can be, as I almost brought myself to commit suicide a number of times because people don't fully accept gays, and I could not accept myself. Ignoring the issue and living a heterosexual life solves nothing, but makes ones relationships to other people unstable and one's self, unstable.

Masters and Johnson are neutral in their attitude towards homosexuality. "The study concentrates on the bodily processes of sex.....and has almost nothing to say about the psychological ethics or origins of homosexuality, nor does it address the question of whether the lack of any procreative aspect to sex affects homosexuality. The conclusions are stated with caution and caveats — the sample is small and may not be representative of the general homosexual population," (Time, April 23, 1979.)

The notion that heterosexual relationships are healthier no longer holds. Psychologists only get the casualties of the system, the heterosexual patients referred to them with sexual problems, relationship problems and immature difficulties, depressed women with drunken husbands, battered wives and wife beaters, rapists...From where the psychologist is sitting, heterosexuality can be seen as being pretty sick. The psychologist could also say that all the homosexuals they see are disturbed. In other words, people make generalisations about homosexuals (and not heterosexuals) from the ones who go to psychiatrists, and that is ridiculous. The biggest problem is the vast ignorance of the subject.

Masters and Johnson's book has another implicit message for heterosexuals: It is that homosexuality is not going to go away, whether society ignores it, accepts it or rejects it!

Who Does then, Mike?

While I openly sympathise with many of the views expressed in "Ikon", and have on two occasions assisted in it's distribution, I have never submitted an article to it for publication, nor am I it's editor.

I will thank you in future to keep your childish aspersions to yourself.

An Elitist Clique

My disappointment and pessimism of my neighbouring Singaporean students were further deepened by the letter signed A Singaporean. I hope s/he is not a typical Singaporean but that of a minority bunch that I know of. This small clique of bloody cocky and arrogant students think they are a rung above the average Malaysians. Most of them have scholarships and make no bones about showing off their above middle class origins. These exhibitionists swagger around flaunting money and displaying their decadent wog culture, held so dear by the affluent of Singapore.

May I remind these bananas, (Asians with white Colonial mentalities) that they may be the 'elites' of Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, but their disgusting 'high society' mannerism will not be tolerated in Victoria University. It is this category of Singaporean, these stereo-typed morons, brain washed and processed by one of the most repressive regimes in the world, that hurts me. These unwitting victims were churned out of the factory to sing praises to Harry Lee, and sadder still think themselves to be the cream of the society!!!

Having punctured their bloated egos, I hope they are now sober enough to swallow another blinking solid fact. And that is that Singapore has been and will always be part of Peninsula Malaya, socially, culturally, historically, politically and economically. If a Singaporean's patriotic fervour is so tuned up as to be ready to slaughter even his fellow countrymen, may I suggest these paper-tiger type national servicemen be fed to the hungry columns of Vietnamese troops.

I will now come back to the letter by the Singaporean. S/He dismissed the many facts and arguments of Salleh and S.Ng as garbage without any substantial argument whatsoever. 'Get the facts right' was mentioned twice in his/her letter. And the single so called 'fact' in A Singaporean's letter was that David Lo, was in 1977, involved in collecting signatures for freedom of speech and political prisoners and to oppose Razak's visit. This must be the most embarassing blunder of facts in the letters to Salient this year.

Razak's Australasian tour was in October 1975. The shock of 'over-enthusiastic' student welcomes accelerted his actute leukemia, and he kicked the bucket on January 14, 1976. By 1977 he was long gone and rotting 6 feet underground, beneath the National Mosque.

Your hero, David Lo must be haunting the ghost of Razak then,' god forbid. Despite his arrogance, Lee Kuan Yew sometimes does bother to check the facts before he opens his big mouth. Perhaps little LKY (A Singaporean) [unclear: sho] his homework too, instead of making a [unclear: pe] fool and laughing stock of himself)

The Man Speaks

In reference to your recent anonymous in Salient 10 September 1979 entitled "[unclear: C] hits the fan' I would like to make [unclear: a] comments and observations.

Firstly, before you brand another as a (ie. 'Salient' in general) look to your backyard; the race relations [unclear: conciliato] already been put on record as saying all [unclear: c] article you produced was "unsavory" [unclear: a] "bad taste."

Secondly, a former well respected [unclear: presid] VSA has stated that Paul Gourlie esq, overseas students best friend at [unclear: Ota] personally am quite willing to stand up [unclear: in] and go on record as saying that he [unclear: has] commitment to overseas students and I [unclear: kno] well that he has done a lot of work [unclear: on] behalf.

Thirdly, before overseas students [unclear: su] Robert Teh start accusing others of being [unclear: r] suggest that they take a look at [unclear: themselve] the International Student Congress in [unclear: Auc]1979, I was extremely disturbed [unclear: by] resentment and in some cases, [unclear: blatant] prejudice I found amongst overseas [unclear: stu] themselves. Malaysian (Chinese) [unclear: studen] some cases wouldn't sit with Malaysian [unclear: (M] students. One Malaysian openly said to [unclear: m] "they didn't want Fijians here" and so [unclear: on.]

I was very concerned by this sort of "[unclear: exc] attitude" shown by some students and I [unclear: sa] to a number of people at the time. [unclear: Some] examples I have given, are connected with of extremely complex set of social and [unclear: po] factors and cannot be gone into in great [unclear: de] a letter of this kind. However, I [unclear: produce] examples not to over dramatize the [unclear: situatio] to clarify the situation and put it into it's [unclear: p] perspective.

Fourthly; you do overdramatize what said at May Council. Paul shouts and this to give the wrong impression sometimes. [unclear: A] he's speaking in his characteristic crescendo and that I think is why what [unclear: he] was misunderstood and I may misconstrued. At Finance and [unclear: Administr] session, the point he was making, and I [unclear: thin] a fair observation to make, is that [unclear: in] NOSAC receives more money out of [unclear: st] funds than what is proportionate to [unclear: ove] student membership of NZUSA. He [unclear: si] posed the question (all be it — in a round [unclear: a] way), as to whether NZUSA should [unclear: increase] amount in light of NZUSA's tight [unclear: final] situation.

I make these comments because I concerned at your laxity in reporting [unclear: str] facts and circumstances thus leading [unclear: you] unwarranted attack on a very good, all [unclear: be] times flamboyant and goddam noisy [unclear: consti] president!

I would also urge everybody to be [unclear: hondes] look at themselves. Everybody has a [unclear: latent,] it in most cases submerged feeling of [unclear: preji] towards other races. If you say you [unclear: hav] you're lying!

Finally, I make these remarks not out [unclear: of] bad feeling for any overseas students, but [unclear: o] a concern to expose a little truth. In fact, [unclear: l] very sorry for overseas students having [unclear: to] $1500 in fees next year — I wouldn't [unclear: war] have to pay it! I only hope that NZ will [unclear: not] too much goodwill in S.E. Asia in the [unclear: future,] result of the fees decision, as we so [unclear: desperi] need it for economic and trade reasons, [unclear: a] from anything else!