We Are Attacked

Throughout the session we refrained from criticising your paper because we have always hoped that each successive issue would show an improvement, however faint, in opnion, matter and style. We can restrain ourselves no longer. Writing as the news sub-editors (of which Miss Hursthouse was the third) of last year's "Smad," we desire to express emphatically our considered opinion that the paper's standard this year has been so deplorable as not to justify its continued existance.

Last year "Smad" first appeared as a weekly newspaper and those in charge had no precedents on which to base the production of the paper. Moreover, it was the year of the printers' strike; a year of incessant conflict with down-town business organisations; a year in which the staff was nevercertain, because of this conflict, whether the paper would appear next week.

This year the staff has had none of these hindrances, yet we are convinced that the general standard of last year's "Smad" was highter and augured a more hopeful future than it does this year. It is a matter of considerable disappointment to "Smad's" was higher and augured a more hopeful future than it does this year. It is a matter of considerable disappointement to "Smad's" 1935 staff that the paper, instead of becoming an even more potent and necessary force in student life, has sunk far beneath the level of a parish magazine.

Some specific criticisms make clear our allegations.

(1) Editorials. After reading these we give thanks that "Smad" has ceased to be "an organ f student opinion." When not merely insipid they are potently reactionary. As an example of the first we refer you to your last editorial headed "Constitutional Amendment." To suggest that people who are not sufficiently interested to attend meetings should be granted the privilege of voting by a "postal or similar ballot!" As to yourreactionary editorials, we instance your editorial of 5th August, "On Military Service." Our sole comment is to suggest that this editorial should have been entitled "A Snivelling Justification of the University to the Hon. William Perry, M.L.C."

(2) Material. "Smad" was intended to be a newspaper. Let us consider your "Tramping Club Travelogues" in the light of the above statement. While fully sympathising with a policy of "See New Zealand First" we ourselves are quite satisfied to go to the Government Tourist Bureau for material which is of a definitely higher standard. We remember a front page report of a Training College "Social." We try to forgive numerous mis-statements and the issue in which you printed two "Nutshell Knowledges" side by side. You may reply that your appeals for contributions remain unanswered, but we know that several students possessing some talent have been denied expression in your columns.

(3) Initiative (Lack of). Even at slight inconvenience to yourself and the printer you should have reported the important Special General Meeting held this term instead of a very bad report of a month-old debate and your "Pleasure Cruise" criticism (sic!) loaded with unnecessary repetition.

4. Staff Notes ... It is interesting to note that your reporters consist of Ian, Tom, Bob, Mick, John, Bob, Ris, Archie, Malcolm and Joy. You appear to have omitted Saucy Susie, Tiny Tim, and Big-hearted Bill.

We have expressed almost half of our criticism and now desire to give notice of our intention in this regard. Unless the Executive gives a definite undertaking to replace a staff that has proved itself utterly incompetent and to investigate "Smad's" affairs and policy we intend to requisition a Special General Meeting at the beginning of next session and to move "That the publication of "Smad" be discontinued."