Repercussions

I am instructed by the Executie of the Association to refer to an article published in the issue of 22nd April, 1936, bearing the caption, "Pleasure and Profit," purporting to be a report on the annual meeting of the N.Z.U.S.A

At the outset, I feel it is unfortunate that the reporter was not present at the meeting, nor did he approach the officials of the Association for an authentic report, No doubt this accounts for the literal inacuracy of the report in places. The most unfortunate aspect, however, is the whole tone of the article which to readers certainly discredits the N.Z.U.S.A.

In so far as this impression is created the Executive has instructed me to disown the article in question.

The point arises, however, that to the general body of students who have not taken steps to aquaint themselves with the doings of the N.Z.U.S.A it may appear that that body 'had done nothing in particular to justify a gain in prestige.'

Members of the Executive know the New Zealand body has grown considerably during the past few years. Quite apart from the fact that the N.Z.U.S.A. acts as a common body for the students of the five university colleges in the dominion, I feel it would be of interest to mention a few of the matters which have received its attention during the past few few years:

Standardisation of N.Z.U. Blues.

Identification cards for N.Z. Students proceeding overseas.

Conduct of the Bledisloe Medal Contest.

Negotiations for overseas Debating Tours.

Preservation of Historical Records.

Negotaiations for Tennis, Boxing, and Athletic Contests between New Aealand and overseas students.

Negotiations re University Fees.

Negotiations re Books.

Conduct of a Peace Ballot.

Co-ordination of N.Z.U. Sports Bodies.

In view of these points it can be claimed that the N.Z. Association has already performed a comsiderable service and has certainly attained a large measure of prestige.

Taking into account the facts it should be apparent for the N.Z.U.S.A. to increase further in pretige, Victoria College must offer her co-operation not necessarily by withholding criticism, but by the avoidance of the type of article which treats the N.Z.U.S.A. as the subject for flippant and destructive wit.

I feel certain that if the N.Z.U.S.A. is accorded the support which it deserves it will continue to grow and become an even more valuable centralisation point for universities of New Zealand.

It All Comes Down To This: Debaters Are Mostly "Dead Marines"

I would like to express a few of my feeling about the Victoria University College Debating Club.

For over four years now I have been going along to debtes, hoping to hear something worth while and a little bit educative or instructive. I have heard very little but tomfoolery. There have been some very able speakers and an occasional well-chosen subject of debate, but very very rarely have I heard a speaker, speak as though he supported his side whole-heartedly or self-convincingly. And, indeed, very few of the speakers seem at all concerned to convince their audience that their side is the right one. No—the person they want to impress is the judge; and if there happens to be no judge the whole debate is a fiasco, with each speaker trying to outdo the other in being too, too funny or just "un peu" shocking.

And now I must tell you, that I do not blame these people for their foolish ways, for human nature is very frail. It is this system of point-getting that is at fault. It seems good to have a judge and to have points—but the Union prize should mean something more than that. And, too, can it be said that some debaters are so more by compulsion than by choice, simply because they wish to enter for the Plunket Medl Contest. And here we touch on another peculiar thing about this club. It is the happy hunting ground for would-be orators. Does it seem right that students should debate in order to orate? The two things are as far apart as the poles. Can the system be changed so what we can hear good orators in the Plunket Medal Contest and not good debaters? And oh, for the days when the debates meant something to debaters and audiences too!

[The above two letters were hele from last week.—ED.]

More Home Truths?

Not much good, I suspect, to say "I toll you so." nor need we mix tears with our spilt milk. But the procession has gone and I feel a little bitter because from the Era of Long Division I have been possessed of a vast ambition to be in a university capping procession, only to find on reaching the qualifying status that no sane, cleanmainded, decent man could possibly take part.

As the advertisers blithely prevaricate, "Beer is best"—but not for capping processions. And the penchant of the Haeremai Club and its ilk for post-processional spots ha filled the procession with lads with a taste for beer but no other kind of taste, and effectively excluded anyone with a sense of humour.

So the gentelmen, with mud where their brains ought to have been, are forbidden their Grand Annaul Burlesque on Womankind. Women arre a most absorbing joke. I burst laughing whenever I see one. And women's clothing forms the stock humour at V.U.C. There is no other worth mentioning. More-over, that women have the requisite sense of humour, but no sense of decency is proved by the fact that they don't object. A similar parade of mascuiline sensitivities would mean the lynching of someone.

This isn't constructive. It's just an expression of annoyance that the corruption in University life, apparent mainly in the Capping celebrations with a rare mixutre of snobbishness, ignorance, and uncleanness, should have to be taken up by the mobile vulgus, the vox unpopuli, before being noticed by the University authorities.

Good luck to the Rev. Andrews!

Extrav. Again

"The Critic's" critiscism of Extrav. make-up, raises a point of principle which I should like trail through your columns.

No amount of make-up can make unlike people alike. Thought and care went into the make-ups and beyond suggesting the character by make-up, actions, and dress, only good casting can make the job convincing. My advice is that if possible, real persons should be carcatured and by that I do not mean made absurd. One or two important characteristics should exaggerated.

To expect actors to resemble other jpeople in all respects is absurd and childish. To caricature other people is simple and effective, but to do too much as "The Critics" suggest, is to ruin the desired effect.

[Other correspondence held.—Ed.]