Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 10, No. 1. February 28, 1947
Will The Truth Prevail?
Will The Truth Prevail?
— an Important Questionnaire
The forces of reaction are well served in New Zealand by certain sections of our "free" press. Since the last issue of Salient we have had a recurrence of a type of virulent attack on progressive movements—a type of attack which has become too common in this country.
New Zealanders have advanced beyond the stage where they can be swayed by such a violently emotional attack as was made recently in the pages of "Truth" on a questionnaire which was issued to sixth form pupils at Wellington College.
Although most thinking people are probably familiar with the circumstances of the case we shall briefly restate the main facts.
1. | The "quiz" gives all the evidence of being a carefully constructed, unbiassed and scientific instrument designed to discover to what degree sixth form boys were class-conscious. |
2. | There was no compulsion involved in answering the "quiz" in whole or in part. |
3. | There was practically no chance of the discovery of the identity of those who completed the questionnaire. |
4. | The prior permission of a responsible authority (The Principal of Wellington College) had been obtained. |
The author of the attack claims glibly that such an investigation "is a negation of all that democracy is supposed to represent and all that soldiers fought, suffered and died for in World Wars I and II!" If he was one of these soldiers surely he must know that many of those who fought and died in the battle against fascism were young men within the age groups represented by the sixth formers who were invited to complete the questionnaire. Not only have they opinions of their own but they are by no means so "impressionable" as he would have us believe. A fact sufficiently attested by their letters in reply to his rabid criticism.
Without being in possession of sufficient facts and with a temerity found only in the ignorant, the anonymous author rushes into print to attack a genuine and valuable attempt at social inquiry, thereby revealing himself as an uninformed layman with some gift for second-rate abuse and puerile alliteration.
Journalese may have its claim to recognition when used to further the aims of the cheap sensationalism dear to a certain type of scribbler: it is certainly out of place when used merely as a means of demonstrating its author's complete failure to appreciate the real value of such an investigation designed by wiser men than he.
To the unknown perpetrator of the vituperative splurge under discussion, the questionnaire is "the product of a tenth-rate mind with little or no reasoning powers." How strange. To those versed in the study of psychology and sociology the questionnaire seems to have been carefully and scientifically constructed. But the opinion, of experts is apparently as nothing compared with the appeal of sensational "copy."
Wot, No Classes?
But besides displaying a naiveté which might be charming in a two-year-old, the critic makes many assertions which are quite unjustifiable. For example, he claims that in a democratic community there should be no classes, disregarding the fact that in the community in which we live at present there is not only in fact a division of society into classes but that that division is rigidly enforced—as the labourer would soon discover if he desired to attend a government house ball or a garden party of the wealthy. This despite the fact that our journalist claims that Christ has dignified manual labour for all time. All the questionnaire set out to do was to find to what extent the pupils concerned were conscious of these distinctions actually existing, and the concensus of expert opinion is that it was well-designed for this purpose without in any way tending to imply the existence of such division or influence at all the opinions of those who were given the opportunity to answer it.
"It (the questionnaire) was properly designed and of a nature by no means unsuitable for distribution to senior pupils—as was the case. The mischief from such a questionnaire comes through inflammatory, uninformed, intolerant attack such as was made in' the article in 'Truth's' pages."
Discussion with the boys concerned proves that they understood the conditions of the questionnaire; while discussion with parents indicates that they are Not "concerned that there should be no repetition of this pernicious business."
It may be the policy of some papers to attack any kind of scientific social investigation but the public is at least entitled to demand that they shall previously have adequate knowledge of the subject involved, or, if that is too much to expect, that they have their articles on specialized subjects written by someone qualified to do so.
— S. T. H. Scoones.