Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2015, by the Victoria University of Wellington Library
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line, except in the case of those words that break over a page.
Some keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Collection scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
In order to make new content available faster this work has been uploaded but does not have comprehensive name authority mark up for sub-works and corresponding authors. We will endeavour to add this mark up as soon as possible.
On Wednesday, April 16th, a resolution of the V.U.W. Student Union deprived the students of this university of the right of freedom of information and the right of freedom of expression in "Salient."
The resolution was to put into effect an existing constitutional provision providing for censorship. This constitutional power has been exercised on only one or two occasions in the past. In future students will be unable to air grievances through the columns of this paper without the prior approval of the official censor or his nominee. No longer are students of this university assured of a genuine organ of student opinion; for in being subject to censorship "Salient" loses its integrity and autonomy and becomes a mere mouthpiece of the Executive.
An example of this censorship in practise is the Executive rulling forbidding the publication in Salient of any correspondence concerning the cafeteria. Such letters may be referred only to the Executive. One can hazard a guess to their fate, when it is recalled that a resolution calling for the presentation of a petition to the Prime Minister, which was passed by an almost unanimous vote of the Students Association in
The editor wishes to point out that any censorship of student papers—a practice usually confined to Communist nations and South American dictatorships—is contrary to the objects of the New Zealand University Student Press Council. Section 3 (d) of the constitution states that "The objects of the Council shall be to promote and maintain the freedom of the New Zealand Student Press from external pressures."
"Salient" believes that the freedom of expression and the free interchange of information and opinions, both in the national and international spheres, are fundamental human rights and essential in the cause of democracy and peace for the achievement of political, social, cultural and economic progress; that in order to achieve the aims of a free society and thereby to promote democratic institutions the media of information should be free from pressure or dictation.
"Salient" requests that readers express their disapproval of the imposition of censorship by writing to those concerned and also that they should express their support for the noble aims of the N.Z.U.S. Press Council.
If any students feel any dissatisfaction with the quality of "Salient" they are free to write in and express their views.
"Salient" also wishes to point out that the decision to publish an apology was passed by only five votes to four, with two abstentions, and it is not necessarily in accordance with the views of "Salient" staff.
"That the Executive of the V.U.W. Students' Union disassociate itself entirely from all personal remarks relating to Mr. J. D. Willis, S.M., contained in a front page article of 27/3/58 and expresses its unreserved apology to Mr. Willis for the offensive nature of these remarks."
In view of my absence from the latter part of the Executive meeting on Wednesday, 16th April, I was unable, then, to register my dissent to the motion passed expressing the Executive's grave concern to the Editor of "Salient" concerning comments contained in an article of
I personally do no approve of the way in which the opinions in the article were put forward. But this is not the question at stake—the freedom of the press is one of the first necessities for a lively community and for the Executive to attempt to suppress the views of a newspaper which is advertised as "an organ of student opinion" and not as "of Executive opinion" is an unwarranted act of interference.
—in which the false principles and reasoning of Mr. D.A.P. and his followers are detected and overthrown. (See last issue's article "Psychology Scorned".)
Firstly, I assert that correlations between facts do not imply a cause and effect relationship, for if they did, then the facts:
would enable one to argue from the following viewpoints:
and vice versa in each case!
Mr. D.A.P. in particular has chosen (c) to suit his preconceived opinions and assumes falsely, the converse of fact (i). (To argue as some do, that the increase is nominal rather than genuine, is an outrageous example of casuistry.)
Secondly, he says "psychiatrists cannot even agree on how to teach children" but argues on (if I may so abuse the phrase) in glorious a priori fashion, picking out whatever psychiatric opinions suit him.
The flow of words at this stage, runs into rapids. He tries to distinguish between "individual development" and "group adjustment", but group adjustment means the adjustment of an individual to a group, and the saltus from "development of the individual child" to "unlimited personal development" is (as Euclid would say) absurd.
A third point, and this is where the emotive undertones of his argument become distasteful, is his reference to neurotics having their egos built up (for a fee) by psychiatrists, and this practice giving people who have done "wrong", excuses to get ird of their "moral responsibility".
My reply is that people may become depressed or upset (how I detest that unsympathetic word "neurotic") in many ways, the transgression of moral codes being only one. Others are: unpleasant childhood experiences; conflicts; and loneliness.
Surely it is the Christian Church which builds up D.A.P.'s ego, with its "chosen species" theory, and its emphasis on the superiority of Christians. The Church also extracts its fee, though in more insideout and subtle ways.
What psychiatry does do, is to point out the arbitrary and changing nature of "moral responsibility" and help the person get a more perspective view of his place in the world.
Science has proven that life is but a chemical response (albeit an unusual one), and psychology as part of science seeks to express this matrix of atoms's behaviour as a function of its genetic history and sensory impressions. Psychiatry in its turn, aims to effect man's better adjustment to his peculiar and unique situation, by reference to these laws. In other words, psychiatry is not "immoral" as D.A.P. claims, but "not moral." Furthermore, science asserts that nature is but an aggregate of statistical laws, and as a whole, is completely deterministic. The Bible, in one of its contradictory moods, recognises this with: "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."
Hence it is my opinion that the Church's only function is to be an institution through which men can recognise their responsibilities for each other's welfare, which function is neglected nowadays in a system whose leaders seem preoccupied with giving public lectures justifying their speculation.
Revealed authority and ideological dogma have become a habit. Surely it is worthwhile in schools to permit a little more free thought such as psychiatry and science offer, in preparation for the impartial decisions which our scientific civilization insists on.
Indeed, prejudice and the inability to compromise are suicidal characteristics in a culture which is rapidly approaching the crossroads.
Sir,—The vociferous tub-thumping of D.A.P. in his article "Psychology Scorned" amused me. I should have thought that a person so bigoted and ignorant would not have risked an article of this type which was so sure to be analysed for its material worth. The subject of the article is good but, owing to a complete lack of knowledge of his subject D.A.P. fails to get near any useful criticism. He failed to recognise the difference between psychiatry (which deals with the abnormal only) and psychology (which is the complete science) and such a fundamental mistake makes much of his writings meaningless.
D.A.P. states "modern psychology has become a perverted Frankensteinean monster . . . raising in the United States a crop of immoral, semi-illiterate, ignorant and selfish people who cannot think for themselves and sneer at what is right. Whose only standards are Elvis Presley, the Sex-Orgy Hollywood Crowd and the propaganda of political hate merchants—the standards of the wolf pack." Subjecting this to an analysis, the inference is that psychology is responsible for juvenile delinquency, the lack of complete education, and the interest in sex, movies and film stars. The fallacy is obvious because these problems have existed in our society, perhaps in different forms, for longer than modern psychology and the fact that some attempt is being made to control these problems is worth noting. In other words, D.A.P. does not want progress. In many similar passages to the one quoted above D.A.P. lets his fear and ignorance speak and not rationality and as a result the article never rises above the level of prolonged ranting.
Incidentally, if a psychiatrist were given admission to prisoners at Auckland prison it would be for diagnosis of a sick person and if he were sick he would be removed to a mental institution. Here is another case where D.A.P. does not know the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist so his only concrete example which he quotes is wrong.
It is clear to me that D.A.P. ignores the basic issue of juvenile delinquency and says that "the teachers, ministers and scientists" should be brought in. In D.A.P.'s mind a psychologist is not a scientist but a "witch" and he has written his article to the end that a new witch-hunt should start on psychologists. I think D.A.P. has been reading too much medieval history.
In
Several valuable suggestions have been made in the Education Report of the New Zealand University Students' Association and most of these recommendations have secured the backing of the Victoria University Students' Union Education Sub-Committee. The first such suggestion is for a B.Sc. (Hons.) course. Such a course would be valuable for those students not intending to advance to a Master's degree but who want to learn more of research technique so that they can obtain jobs in research instead of going to technician grade. Application of such a system to other faculties might be advantageous. For example, a B.A. (Hons.) course might prove to be of considerable merit.
A second suggestion is for the inclusion of Theology in the B.A. course. To quote from the N.Z.U.S.A. Report: "There are a number of strong reasons in favour of the inclusion of Theology in the B.A. course. It is intimately connected with many other subjects. In the study of any modern language, for example, students come into contact with authors greatly influenced by the theological and religious currents of their time. These authors must be read in the light of their theological climate, a knowledge of which is necessary for the full understanding of them. Again, in the study of the Classics, little or no attention is paid to the most influential of Greek books. A university curriculum should not contain so wide a gap. Theology is also related to History. Many periods (for example, the Middle Ages and the Reformation) can be fully studied only by a person with a knowledge of their theological background. Philosophy has always been concerned with religious belief and submitted it to reason. Philosophy and Theology have obvious close connections, and one can be more adequately studied in the light of the other. Apart from its connection with other subjects, theology touches on the deepest questions men have ever asked: what is man? what is his destiny? what is the meaning of the universe? Theology is one subject which seeks to answer these questions, and the study of its answers would provide broader knowledge on which a man might base the beliefs by which he will live. Finally, many people argue about religious questions and show, at best, a knowledge of the point at issue which is at about Sunday School or Primary School level. It seems reasonable that an opportunity to study theological questions at a more mature and adult level should be provided in the University." I myself feel that Theology should prove a particularly valuable unit especially if it took the form of a comparative study of religious systems and philosophies.
It is also about time that the local University Council considered the possibility of teaching Anthrapology and Ancient History, and Maori also, at this college. At present, any local students desirous of studying these subjects have to plug away on their own extramurally.
I myself would like to recommend New Zealand Studies as a new subject. Most New Zealand students are grossly ignorant of the many fine achievements in literature made by New Zealanders. Likewise, few students have more than a hazy knowledge of New Zealand history, political institutions and public administration. Might I suggest that this subject be added to the curriculum as speedily as possible, and that at Stage I level the examination consist of one paper on New Zealand literature and one paper on New Zealand history and political institutions?
The recent article by D.A.P. incorrectly titled "Psychology Scorned", is for its consistent display of ignorance and arrogance one of the most extraordinarily nonsensical pieces of verbal vomit that I have ever read in any newspaper. Within the whole article it is almost impossible to find a sentence that makes sense. Indeed, on closer inspection there are only two; and even they are disputable. For reference, they are:
The first sentence quoted may state fact, but it also raises questions:
Also, would New Zealand criminals and New Zealand school children react in similar ways to psychiatrists? I cannot see why this sentence was used.
The other one, a mixture of misunderstood technical words and a woolly cliche, is accidentally true, and the facts are not disregarded by those concerned.
D.A.P. reminds me not of the kitten that chases its tail, but the one that bites it too hard, repeatedly. I don't know whether he means the article to be serious or humorous. On the humorous side, the only thing that could be laughed at is the author's ignorance; but that ignorance is indeed appalling.
Anti-Ausubel? Anti-American? Anti-Psychiatry? Anti-Psychology? Anti-everything?
What exactly is D.A.P.'s target? Is he criticising Dr. Ausubel, or "psychiatric methods"? He is obviously not criticising psychiatric methods, since he never uses the words correctly. But if he is criticising Dr. Ausubel, then he does not know the function or meaning of "criticism", either. In this connection, I quote what I think he thinks to be his key sentence:
"Coming from the nation with the highest juvenile delinquency rate in the world, Dr. Ausubel should have the sense to shut up about American phychiatric methods and we should take a good look at them before we get them foisted off on to us."
Note:
not advocating "psychiatric methods" in schools. (See above, and also footnote.)not trying to foist them on to us—he is not trying to foist any ideas on anybody.are to learn about Ameri-psychiatric methods, then it is ludicrous to have this American expert who has so much subject matter, "shut up about" them. Would D.A.P. rather have a man from Notremoursville than a Japanese tell us about earthquakes? (Besides, it is both ludicrous and bad-mannered to tell any visiting expert "to shut up."
N.B.: Dr. Ausubel has, in fact, said very little, by way of Press publication in New Zealand, about American psychiatric methods. What he has mainly stated, are "talking points" for educational psychology.
I see no sense in picking on every (incorrect) sentence in this way. D.A.P.'s first sentence helps me to make my point doubly clear. The first part of it is merely untruthful nastiness ("so-called Educator"). But the second part of it—that Dr. Ausubel's visit has stirred up a great deal of controversy on psychological (D.A.P. uses the correct word here) methods of education in schools—is probably right. I for one think, and I hope that Dr. Ausubel does too, that this is mainly a good thing. The controversy is mainly on the form of D.A.P.'s "arguments" against scientific fact. In other words the ones with little useful to say (including an alarming percentage of New Zealand parents) are simply stirring up the water to see how muddy it can get, so as to obscure the issue; whilst the others (Dr. Ausubel and the few who are able to do it), are stirring it up for analysis. But at least in this way there is just the possibility that something constructive may result, whereby the ignorant may some day realise their folly, at what could almost be classed as "biting the hand that feeds them" type of behaviour.
Dr. Ausubel is not a psychiatrist, nor a "so-called Educator", and therefore D.A.P. need not get so alarmed—amongst other things, he is a parent and an educational psychologist. Perhaps D.A.P. might have to sort out these terms from a dictionary? (He might find that he might profit from an interested psychiatrist, but that teaching methods certainly profit from the work of interested psychologists. D.A.P. calls modern psychology "a perverted Frankensteinean monster." I did not suspect that any one had ever seen so much in it as to warrant this type of definition. Besides, to my way of thinking a perverted Frankensteinean monster is probably a better thing than an ordinary one.
David Riesman says of Progressive Education in the U.S.A. (in The Lonely Crowd"), "Its aim and to a very considerable degree, its achievement, was to develop the individuality of the child; and its method was to focus the teacher's attention on more facets of the child than his intellectual abilities." These are my underlinings in one sentence that tells us more about teaching and psychology than D.A.P.'s whole article. The underlined words are to my mind only incidentally against what D.A.P. has to say—I know that they have been carefully thought about.
D.A.P. is so utterly unqualified to write on these subjects that it would have been better for all if he had had his temper tantrum all by himself, in his own locked bedroom.
To make sure that his friends were in the right frame of mind and dressed suitably for the occasion, John Marchant had a get-together at his flat before leaving for the Pyjama Night" at "Skyline" last Saturday.
Although some of the Antarctic Expedition men were 10th to change into their night attire, they were finally persuaded and were rigged from neck-to-knee in scarves, woollen socks, dressing gowns and the necessary pyjamas.
"She tried to live forever. What (hey do in the civil service."
More than 2880 students have been liberated throughout the Ash-burton County this season by farmers who hatched them from eggs supplied by the Ashburton Acclimatisation Society."
"Vampire jet crashes. Wide search follows armed hold-up."
"Miss Victoria goes south ... to discuss the rising rate of delinquency in universities."
"A bishop who publicly defended the Queen's right to go racing, Dr. Joseph Halsall, Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Liverpool, died last night, aged 56.
He also defended the Duke of Edinburgh against those who said that he should not play polo on Sundays, and upheld the freedom of the ordinary man to have a drink or a gamble."
"Who knoweth that which happeneth to a brain after being subject to the tortures of the Law of the Romans?—Written in near delirium
"Mr. Eric L. Roberts, a tall, soft-spoken Glaswegian, sat in his hotel room in Wellington last night and interpreted life in terms of Scotch whisky. From Tierra del Fuego to John o' Groats, he said, whisky is the only unifying influence the world over . . . Whisky was one commodity which was always ready when Britain went to war. She might be short of guns and ammunition and pencils . . . but were wars won on whisky? Scotland, he said proudly, is the only undefeated country in Europe."
(Perhaps the drastic cuts in the importing of whisky are really a subtle form of disarmament.—Ed.)
—It is difficult to understand the mentality of the mentality of the university students who recently paraded in pyjamas for a performance of "The Pyjama Game" in Wellington. Surely they get sillier and sillier. Our teenage girls and boys are sometimes labelled delinquents or bodgies and widgies when they dress in Teddy-boy suits or matador pants, yet these students who are supposed to have brains to fit them for a university career, do these idiotic things. Amazing, isn't it.
A public and general meeting of the New Zealand Haemophilia Society will be held in the supper room, Lower Hutt Town Hall, on Tuesday, May 13th, at 7.45 p.m.
The speakers will include Dr. O. C. Mazengarb, C.B.E., Q.C., President to the Society; Mr. F. J. Kills, M.P. (His Worship the Mayor of Wellington, Vice-President to the Society); Mr. Percy Dowse (His Worship the Mayor of Lower Hutt); Dr. W. Stewart Alexander (Secretary to the Honorary Medical Advisory Council) of the Society.
It is in the interest of all Haemophilic and Christmas disease members that they attend in person or make arrangements to be represented by a relative or friend.
An executive committee will be elected from those interested persons who are present at this meeting.
Be sure to mark this date on your engagement pad:—
Two applications for the N.Z. U.S.A. volunteer graduate scheme in Indonesia will have been considered by the selection committee before Easter, and if all goes well the first graduates to participate in the scheme may travel to Indonesia late this year or early
The selection committee will make recommendations to N.Z.U.S.A. at its next meeting.
The New Zealand Government has formally approved the scheme, under which young graduates will go to Indonesia to work in positions where they can assist in the development of the recently-independent country's economic resources. Engineers, scientists and other specialists will work alongside Indonesians, receiveing the same rates of pay as Indonesians with similar qualifications.
For some months reports of political unrest and anti-European sentiment in Indonesia have delayed action on putting the scheme into operation but no reports have been received of victimization or embarrassment to participants who have been in Indonesia recently.
N.Z.U.S.A. has frequently reviewed the situation in the light of conflicting reports. It is now satisfied that tentative steps can be taken towards sending the first graduates. The only formality that remains to be overcome is the Indonesian government's final approval of the scheme, and this is expected in the next few weeks.
In his report to the Annual Council of N.Z.U.S.A. the president, Mr. Des Dalgety, says: "It is my firm conviction that ... in the first year (of the scheme) two persons would be a suitable number."
The first two selections would be top-flight choices—persons whom we can be 99% certain will be successful and will be able to guide this association and the selection committee as to the best ways of developing the scheme to our own and the Indonesians' satisfaction," says Mr. Dalgety.
It is safe to assume that Labour will be much discredited when its present term in Parliament is over. There is a great difference between the ineffective, but decently obscured Opposition of last year and the crazily exposed Government of this. The next few years will see a lot of buck-passing and muddy abuse within the Party itself.
Holyoake has taken a high stand about bringing down the new Government (and he most easily could, considering the number of ailing men in the Labour Cabinet) on the grounds that it has a mandate to rule. The fact is they're only too happy to see a weak Labour Government threshing around. The best thing Holyoake can do for the Opposition is to judge exactly when the country has reached the very nadir of its fortunes—and find some pretext to force an election.
How is the Government placed to meet the problems facing it? All the men of long experience and tried handiness in office have suffered illness within the last year. The death of Mr. Nash would leave the Party with a pretty leadership problem on its hands, Mr. Moohan being out of favour just now. The sudden defection of Mr. Nordmeyer would foul up what is, in the circumstances, the most vital portfolio of all. Mr. Mason is the only man in the Parliamentary Labour Party with the proper qualifications for the Attorney-Generalship. In any case, all sorts of qualifications for high office seem to be lacking.
(Insert)—????
Had the Parliamentary Party planned for itself, it would be a responsible Government today. You would expect a Labour Party to be nicely balanced between Left and Right, between union men and middle class men with qualifications other than contact with the rank and file; you would expect to find men with degrees for the Attorney-Generalship, the Portfolio of Education and the charge of the D.S.I.R.; you would expect Labour farmers and Labour businessmen. If a Nelson unionist can stand for Lyttelton, then a Hawkes Bay farmer can stand for Island Bay. The Party should be representative in Parliament and outside it.
Such a reappraisal will not now come without a struggle, and it must come from a well-organised and clear-sighted minority who are in agreement about the role Socialism has still to play in New Zealand and are not contented just to sit around making summaries of British Labour's "Blueprint for Prosperity".
The only way to make any impact at all is by direct political action—by putting up a candidate against every Official Labour candidate whose record does not justify his sitting in Parliament. We already know there is a body of discontented, leaderless voters, which will respond to directed effort. True leadership consists in capturing the imagination of a body of people, moving them to controlled endeavour, making a small epic struggle of their days and lives. Vote-splitting would ensure some members of the group of admission to Parliament sooner or later.
Any Labour Party whose affairs are conducted amid the crash of broken glass is in pretty good fettle. How long is it since New Zealand took a running jump at itself?
If there is to be any advance in Socialist thought in this country, it must be immediately concerned with the day to day working of governments; it must grow from a strong, articulate national alliance and it must aim at getting a hearing in the highest instrument of government; it must not go the way of the "Here and Now", the university, the uncommitted Socialist and Communist groups all over the country, which fume and pose and delude themselves that isolation and slander and bitterness will bring them nearer to making a responsible Parliamentary Party a reality.
Is there no room for socialism there? Then let us make room.
(To be continued.)
Must the demands of economy be taken as far as they were for the Freshers Ball. I refer to that institution in Victoria known as the Jazz Club.
It is supposed that the music to be provided at such functions is to be of a nature that fulfils the reasonable requirements of the dancing population. The cacophony which greeted participants at the Freshers Ball could not, even by the most tone deaf member, be placed in this category. (Even the Rock an' Rollers were heard to complain at the absence of the suitable noises so necessary for the exposition of their art.) But it cannot be blamed on the Jazz Club alone as their main purpose is the playing of jazz for their own enjoyment. They were not formed for the purpose of playing as a dance orchestra and as has been seen, are not yet capable of doing so. It is felt that perhaps if the Club so decides they could form a group for the sole purpose of providing a competent dance band that could adapt themselves to this end but at the moment they should not be called upon to play music of a type in which they are not interested.
After reading "D.A.P.'s" article on Psychology Scorned I came to the conclusion that the whole thing was a joke or at best an effort to rouse some discussion. However, if the author meant to be serious I am surprised to see such a low intellectual standard in a university newspaper or does "Salient" follow a policy of printing all contributions?
The author obviously knows nothing of the subject he attacks and his demand for a return to Christian Truth (just when has his Christian Truth ever been much in evidence) shows an unrealistic approach to the problem. Psychology is not perfect but even at its worst it does present an intelligent rationale to evaluate; something which "D.A.P." could do well to imitate.
—I should be grateful if you could help me. You see, I am a freak; an unenlightened dunderhead; a political "square" who spent sixpence to buy "Salient" and to read:
And even after reading all this I am not a Socialist. I don't like Communism. I don't believe in the liquidation of opposition. I am the product of a Capitalist state.
I hope I am not a dirty Fascist swab.
I know Russia is wonderful, that we must exchange visits and that I must try to win her friendship. I know that her "sputnik" and her little dog were up in the sky before anyone else's, especially before the unmentionable American capitalist one.
I know I ought to think, if not to shout "Down with the enemies of the People" and I know that I ought to forget that General of the U.S.S.R. Serov has killed over 20 million Russians because the Fascist Himmler killed 12 million Jews and others.
Perhaps that is an imperialist lie anyway.
But it's all so sad, and I wonder if any of your kind readers can help me to come into line and join the Party?
I have dreams at night, too. I had the misfortune, in England, to see the filthy B.B.C. television production of
I must try to believe that black is white when I am told it is, and that peace is really war, and that the days of decadent Western capitalist democracy are nearly over, and that 2 and 2 make 5. . . .
I must practice shouting Long Live the People, Long Live Our Leader (not old windbag Nash, who isn't a true Socialist either).
May I humbly suggest a new Faculty to help sub-normal, backward scabs like myself?
Perhaps your contributor "S"—as anonymous as Big Brother, and whose blistering hatred of all that is bad stamps him as a true comrade in the struggle, will consent to a professorship to help me to hate, too.
Could we have Hate classes on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays? And Queen Anne Isn't Dead classes on other days?
—I am a Socialist. I am a trade unionist. Unlike Mr. Gamby, however, I don't much care whether I'm Prime Minister, or not.
Even more unlike Mr. Gamby, I do not suffer from, on the one hand, contempt for my fellow man, or the type of crass ignorance which leads me into making sweeping statements about groups of people of whom I know nothing; furthermore, about whom, owing to the contempt mentioned above, I am likely to learn nothing.
In the first place, I humbly proffer myself, as a member of my union's Board of Management and a delegate to the Wellington Trades Council as having some hand in "Labour Party policy making." (I have been secretary and treasurer of the Socialist Club.
The L.P. candidate for Patea in the November elections has also been a committee member. There is a member of the Labour Party's Wellington Co-ordinating Committee who was on the committee for some years. I could cite others, too (Bob Tizard, M.P. for Tamaki, was present from A.U.C. at a meeting of delegates from Labour Clubs within N.Z.U.S.A. which I attended from Victoria, some years back.) This leads on to my next point that proves Mr. Gamby's ignorance further. To insist that (a) the working class thinks of nothing but refrigerators and washing machines and (b) that it's leadership is composed of nothing but old, embittered men, merely tells me that Mr. Gamby has never bothered to meet any workers. I could give Mr. Gamby examples of faulty leadership, drawn from experience, and not from the leader writers of "Freedom" or the "Dominion", but I occupy my time with trying to right any wrongs, not complaining.
Try again, Mr. Gamby. Think as you please, of course, but, until your ideas change, do not label those thoughts "socialist". My opinion of those thoughts has been very well expressed by a more able writer than myself, as "didactic, pompous, platitudinous, sententious, diffuse, verbose, periphrastic, pleonastic, pharisaical, casuistic—and wrong."
Cassandra, of the "Daily Mirror" was referring to John Foster Dulles, but I find the resemblance most striking.
—As a spectator at the Easter Tournament, I had the opportunity to observe many of the sports and also had the doubtful honour of hearing the presenter of trophies say, "And the wooden spoon is again won by Victoria."
Why should Vic. always be at the bottom of everything? This is not true for all sports, but it is so near that the difference doesn't matter.
I think that the borer that will no doubt feed one day on our wooden spoon are already feasting amply on our student organisations. Have you looked at the notice boards lately? How many freshly drawn illustrated posters have we got—precious few. In their place our clubs lake the easy way out and use a typewritten poster. How uninspiring to freshers coming into a new life. Slightly above this level is the illustrated poster drawn to get cracking.
I commence by deploring the state of Vic's sporting showing at Tournament and have devoted most of my space to criticising the notice board.
Vic. is not a small university—it should be able to produce the equivalent number of competitors, yet everywhere I went I saw the same thing—a small group who were up to standard and the remainder well below. I believe that if all the students who compete in Wellington in sports joined our clubs then our standing would increase immeasurably. And how are we going to persuade all our students to compete for us? By showing them that our clubs have something to offer and that we have a lively, well organised group.
Club secretaries, yours is a responsibility far beyond the normal conception of your position. It is in your hands whether Vic. makes up its leeway or whether we drift for another year in the doldrums.
We cannot hope to recover in one year, but at least we can be in a position to look back and say:
So say the Rationalists. And what is a Rationalist? The Concise English Dictionary defines a Rationalist as "one who rejects the supernatural elements in the Old and New Testaments and disbelieves in revelation."
That, of course, rules out the Bible as the revealed word of God, rules out miracles, especially those of the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is not even room for God and, what's more, we can't know anything about God unless we can work it out and prove it, deductively and conclusively like a geometrical theorem.
We are not left with much, are we. But just think for a moment. Are you sure you are the same person you were yesterday? Of course you are. Can you prove it deductively? No, you can't, but that doesn't lessen your certainty in any way. Apparently we can and do accept as true some things which cannot be proved deductively.
Perhaps you are not such an extreme rationalist and sceptic after all. Even if a fact can't be proved deductively to be true, you are prepared to accept it as true if there is sufficient weight of evidence in its favour. But what about God?
"Perhaps there is a God," you say, "but he seems to be a sort of Sunday School God, suitable for small children and senile persons of a low I.Q. but not for the normally intelligent and thinking Varsity student." Is God only for those of lesser intelligence? Well, cogitate on this.
Half a century ago a man was born in Germany, he became one of the world's greatest organists and experts on Bach, was awarded five doctorates and was as claimed as one of the most brilliant men of the era, and then gave it all up and went to live in a foul, steamy, unhealthy climate in tropical Africa as a missionary doctor. Do you seriously think that Albert Sweitzer went to Africa to serve a childish God? His actions are pretty strong evidence to support the view that God means a lot to Sweitzer.
Perhaps there is something in Christianity, after all, for Sweitzer has not been the only one to give up position, wealth, comfort and even life for their God.
Rationalism sounds very learned and academic but what has it really to offer. Ultimately, nothing.
What does Christianity have to offer? Christianity offers, among other things, a new and fuller life, a life that is worth living, a life that brings inward satisfaction. Those that are living this new life feel a strong urge to tell others about it in case they miss out.
Early in June, the V.U.W.E.U. is running a mission for just that purpose. If you would like to hear just what Christ offers you as a Varsity student, come along to some of the meetings. It could make all the difference to your life.
—Typographical errors aside, "Salient" has made me flinch three times in recent weeks. The first time was Mr. Kelliher's editorial expressing quiet joy at the arithmetical increase of Catholicism in New Zealand. The second was Mr. Bollinger's reply, which, apart from displaying the incipient Bolshevism we have come to associate with Mr. Bollinger, implied that the increase is a dirty trick on the part of Catholics who won't play fair by using contraceptives. The third was another editorial by Mr. Kelliher imploring all "balanced Christians" to base their faith upon "the testimony of history" and "the discoveries of archaeological expeditions".
May I ask Mr. Kelliher whether Christ instructed his apostles to base their campaigns on vital statistics? Or were they imbued with a less arid doctrine? It is beside the point to argue, as Mr. Bollinger argues, that the Catholic increase is due to birth control among Protestants and an adverse balance of trade in immigrants. A more appropriate comment would be to assert the good fortune of Catholicism in increasing when it has such poor advocates as Mr. Kelliher. Why doesn't Mr. Kelliher chuck his census report under the copper and remember the existence of sceptical students who must by now have classified him as a backward child? He might then draw more responsible and helpful comment than that offered by Mr. Bollinger, for whom contraception is clearly an unqualified boon.
Mr. Kelliher also tells us we should subscribe what he calls a "rational faith", based on historical and archaeological proofs, for the "leap in the dark". Bat has he as sure a grasp of these proofs as he makes uot? If he has not investigated the proofs at first-hand, as I believe he has not, then he must have received them at second-hand from a book. Any reputable historian will tell you that to do such a thing is in only a very limited way rational—is, as Mr. Kelliher himself might say, a "leap in the dark". Moreover, if Mr. Kelliher is to decry simple faith and silent prayer and to advance a grasp of history and archaeology as a prerequisite for "balanced Christianity", then he has to wipe half the Christian saints off the calendar. Can we expect this in the next issue?
—As a Catholic I wish to disassociate myself entirely from the bigoted, highly personal, and extraordinarily naive interpretation of Christian belief given in your editorial of
In the first place the terminology is unsound. "The testimony of history"—what does this mean? The testimony of others? (Historians have written a frightful lot of tripe.) ... Or the pronouncement of some oracle that floats through the passage of time and mysteriously records events? If so, my faith is as little based "on the testimony of history" as it is "upon the discoveries of archaeology." The Christian faith, thanks be to God, has a far more rational foundation than that.
Secondly, the proposition that a Christian can have "only" one of two "opposed" foundations, viz., either rational or non-rational, is surely the most manifest heresy as well as the most arbitrary dogmatism. Man is not so self-sufficient that he can concoct a supernatural faith from the purely rational foundations of his own reason, and it is an arrogant pride to claim he can. Even if, after the manner of Boling-broke, one made the attempt, one could never accept such a rational fiction, that is submit oneself to it, without taking some kind of "plunge in the dark"—sign a blank cheque of commitment. The living experience of the act of faith (and surely "T.J.K." should at least have heard that "without faith it is impossible to please God"—Heb. XI, 6) is a great mystery. By its very nature it is supranational. (C.f. the constitution "Dei Filius" of the Vatican Council, placet
The labelling of non-rational foundations of faith as "a naive sort of belief", "a sort of nonsense", "childish", consisting of "strings of empty phrases" is irredeemably dotty and nothing short of sheer blind and credulous bigotry. It is sure to offend any who (unfortunately) in all sincerity entertain very real doubts abouts the validity of Christianity's rational foundations. Shame! Elementary courtesy should surely restrain one from entering the inviolable sanctuary of other men's consciences and pronouncing so rash and so rude a judgment.
Lastly, I think that to refer to the bodily remains of the dead (temporarily-vacated temples of the Holy Ghost) as "a few old bones", and to campaign in the name of Christianity for the defence of alcohol and betting and for less silent prayer in favour of more social activities in the materialistic society of which this university forms part—all this is a sure sign of the perversions to which notions of a purely rational Christianity necessarily lead.
In future editorials, I beg of you: more sympathy, more logic, and a generous measure of a humble and healthy tolerance.
[Mr. Grogan has made a good point in demonstrating the inadequacy of my classification of "faith". There are obviously two possible meanings of this word "faith" in this particular context. There is, firstly, as Mr. Grogan points out, that type of "faith" which can come within the classification of rational in so far as it produces a compelling effect on the intellect in the same manner as evidence brought forward by historical and archaeological research. The effect of this supernatural aid is, I think, to raise the degree of a believer's certitude from one based upon a balance of probabilities in favour of Christianity to a certitude which recognises the truths of Christianity as being beyond all reasonable doubt. But this is not in conflict with reason as it produces the same persuasive effect on the intellect as reasoned argument. Certainly, too, what is believed on such grounds cannot in any way conflict with reason.
This in no way derogates from the main point of my argument. There is nonetheless a naive sort of belief which is in no way supernatural and supra-rational but rather is a superstitious practice based upon pure sentiment and emotion. This is the sort of religious approach that Belloc attributes to the Frenchman, Paschall, and whole-heartedly condemns. This is the "leap-in-the-dark" kind of belief.—Editor.]
—"Rationalism on the Decline." As this discussion turns to a certain extent, at any rate, on statistics, I think it should be pointed out that the figures of religious allegiance contained in censuses are by no means completely reliable. While I have no doubt that the rationalist, in the nineteenth century sense, with his belief in the inevitability of progress and the benevolent powers of science, is a pretty rare bird these days, I think that the number of sceptics, agnostics and persons who are indifferent about religion has increased considerably, in New Zealand as elsewhere. But for various reasons this development is not accurately revealed in the census statistics; some are vague about what constitutes religious allegiance, while others feel that somehow there is something disgraceful about admitting that one has no religion.
Thus, I think that it is generally recognised that the figures of the Church of England are grossly inflated, due to the aura of "establishment" and social prestige which it possesses. But this situation is by no means confined to New Zealand. For instance, I read in the "New Zealand Tablet" (
If these considerations are valid, then it is rather dangerous—to say nothing else—for religious groups to be made either self congratulatory or dejected by census statistics. It would be far better if we were to pay less attention to quantity (interesting though this may be) and more to the much more important matter of quality.
—Mr. C. V. Bollinger's attempt to throw ridicule on your factual statement has fallen rather flat.
The first reason he gives for the increase in the Roman Catholic population is not only ridiculous but extremely vulgar. However, his second reason is valid for a large percentage of the sharp increase in the Catholic population.
On the other hand, I would remind him, Sir, that the increasing number of converts must also be taken into account. We live in what is called the Atomic Age with scientific conception of the Universe as the basis of the modern thought. The inquirer today has a sceptical and radical outlook on things theological. The increasing number of converts are not entering the Church bindly, but are proving for themselves that the fundamental truths of Catholicism are based on scientifically proven pacts which have withstood the ravages of man and time and are not, as many would have it, based on mysticism, fear and ignorance.
It may well be, Sir, that we are entering into another "age of light" which may lead to the eventual salvation of the world.
—Doubtless the Roman Catholic population of this country (including yourself, are gloating over the increasing numbers of adherents to their faith.
I myself, in common with most New Zealanders, view this increase with anything but pleasure; the aims of the Roman Church to recover its lost supremacy (both political and spiritual) by sheer weight of numbers, are sufficiently evident, especially in Australasia and the U.S.A., to cause concern to anyone wishing for the dawn of a more enlightened age.
The Church of Rome has a grisly record of promoting wars and bloodshed which extends over many centuries, and which culminated in Catholic acivities prior to and during the Second World War.
It was Pope Pius XI who hailed Mussolini as "a man sent by Divine Providence", forbade Italian catholics to oppose his rise to poyer, and concluded the Lateran Treaty, which cleared the way for Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia; this same invasion, notorious even at a time when such acts were relatively frequent, did not provoke one word of censure from the Roman Hierarchy.
Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic; and the support of the Pope, who ordered the German bishops to instruct their clergy to support Hitler, proved the decisive factor which enabled him to seize power in Germany. It was (and for that matter, still is), Vatican influence that enabled so many ex-Nazi leaders to resume key positions in Germany only a very few years after the war. (See "Lest We Forget", in "Salient,"
The Vatican promoted one of the bloodiest civil wars of modern times, when Franco's (Catholic) minority party, aided significantly enough, by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, plunged Spain, who was at last making the first steps towards democracy, into three years of strife, resulting in the enslaved and backward country that is Spain today; the enormity of this crime becomes even greater when it is realised that even by
Roman Catholic interference is still active in affairs of foreign countries; Malta is an excellent example of this; and the present fiasco with Mr. Mintoff is only a repetition of the Lord Strickland case in
Your call for State Aid for Private Schools (for Private . . . read Catholic), and your implied claim that lack of religious (also presumably Catholic) teaching in schools is responsible for our juvenile delinquency I found no less surprising than your pleasure at Catholic increases in the population.
Why Roman Catholics, or any other sect, for that matter, feel justified in demanding State Aid for their schools has always been beyond me. A perfectly adequate education is provided by the state, and if any group wishes to educate its children by some different method, surely it is up to them to pay for it themselves. If Roman Catholics have a right to state aid, then so has every tin-pot group of fanatics and cranks that care to ask for it, to say nothing of the twenty-five or so religious groups represented in this country. Furthermore, why should the bulk of the population be taxed to provide for the special education of a minority group?
It is also difficult to see just what the Catholic schools have to recommend them; for example, in Catholic Spain, children are taught that Liberalism, liberty of conscience and freedom of the Press are grave sins. A group which operates the in famous Index, and which has been responsible for centuries of ignorance and deliberate suppression of knowledge can hardly lay claim to an enlightened education system. The Index is worthy of a closer examination:
The first Index was published in
Your comment about the lack of Christian (again, I infer Roman Catholic) teaching in schools, also deserves a few words. One would, going by your remarks, expect Catholic countries to have a high standard of moral behaviour; this is unfortunately not so: in Italy itself, prostitution is controlled by the State, which makes a tidy revenue out of it, and there are hundreds of brothels in the very seat of the Papacy. Spain is in a very similar position, and in Brazil, a super-Catholic country, over 90% of the population has, or has had, venereal disease, while in Paris alone there are 100,000 prostitutes.
Incidentally, your remark about "spring knives" recalls to mind an interesting series of coincidences: Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by a Roman Catholic; a Catholic attempted to assassinate Bismarck because of his anti-Catholic laws; the President of Mexico was murdered in
In view of the exciting series of events related in my last paragraph it is with considerable trepidation that I sign myself—
It was with the deepest surprise that I read Mr. R. G. Hall's extraordinary document which attempts to gloss over well-documented facts, thereby producing a most one-sided account.
Re the claim that "the Church of Rome has a grisly record of promoting wars and bloodshed": The writer omits to mention that at the last annual meeting of France's cardinals and archbishops a statement was issued calling for an end to the conflict in Algeria. The statement warned those in authority "to avoid excesses contrary to natural law and the laws of God". May 18 was set aside as Peace Sunday. A similar appeal for peace in Algeria was published in a pastoral letter by Archbishop Leon-Etienne Duval of Algiers. Recently, too, the Vatican weekly, L'Osservatore della Domenica, deplored the French bombing of the Tunisian town of Sakiet-Sidi-Youssef earlier this year. In Cuba, the Catholic hierarchy recently appealed to the Cuban dictator, Batista, to establish a "government of national unity" to end the two-year civil war. The statement expressed the view that "we exhort all those who today fight in enemy camps to cease the use of violence and seek as soon as possible effective solutions to bring back to our country the material and moral peace that are so lacking". When the proposal was turned down the Catholic Church then formed a four-man commission for National Harmony to act as a mediator between Cuba's government and opposition forces. Here, then, are two recent examples that refute Mr. Hall's claim.
Re German and Italian Fascism: The writer, Mr. Hall, conveniently neglects to mention the condemnation of Nazism by eight Bavarian bishops in
Re the allegation that the Vatican promoted the Spanish Civil War: I remind Mr. Hall that the first uprising in Spain was instigated by the Communist-Socialist Alliance. This was the armed uprising in the Asturias beginning on
Re State Aid: To get a knowledge of Catholic educational justice I would refer the reader to Maclean's magazine,
Re the Index: What few critics of the Index realise is that it creates no problem to a serious student in any particular subject. I understand that permission to read forbidden books can be fairly readily obtained from one's parish priest or confessor. In any case students automatically qualify for a special dispensation to read any books connected with their course. The truth is that the Index exists not to stifle thought but rather to guide thoughtless people in their reading.
To make a more positive approach, I would just like to mention some of the recent Catholic contributions to the world's literature as a vindication of the Church's "high educational claims". The first half of this century was almost dominated by Belloc and Chesterton; to quote Dr. Reid from Auckland University: "Now that the shouting of controversy has died down, Belloc is being recognised as one of the greatest prose writers of this century and Chesterton as one of its finest and most original minds". In contemporary England the Catholic Church is represented by the formidable trio of Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh, and Bruce Marshall, not to mention J. B. Morton, Compton McKenzie, Christopher Sykes, Antonia White, and Archbishop Mathew. In contemporary France one finds an equally imposing list of Catholic writers—Mauriac, Bloy, Bernanos, D'Aurevilly, Luc Estang, Daniel-Rops, van der Meersch, Julien Green and Jean Cayrol. Each one is a living witness to the inspiration and creative urge that Catholicism provides.
I would also like to mention that the claim that 90% of the population of Brazil have, or have had, venereal disease is self-evidently absurd.
I would suggest that in future Mr. Hall sends letters of this sort to the New Zealand Rationalist or to the publication of the Loyal Orange Lodge.
"To say that politics are dirty is as true as saying that all churchgoers are hypocrites," said the Hon. Mr. Marshall, addressing the S.C.M. recently. To illustrate their "clean-liness" in New Zealand he said that in all the years in which he had been a Member of Parliament nobody at any time had ever offered him a bribe!
Mr. Marshall went on to point ou the difference between religion and politics. Religion was first of all personal, whereas politics were concerned mainly with the community; religion was concerned with an ideal, perfection, and the failure to reach that perfection, whereas politics dealt with real situations in daily life. Politics he defined as the art of the possible. Thirdly, religion was concerned with eternal life and the faith that this life was not the end and had a meaning, while politics were concerned with present conditions, for no party that offered people prospects of eternal life instead of conditions of security would last long.
However, both were concerned with people. No party could ignore the sacredness of personality and its consequence in administration. The individual was more important than the state and therefore the Christian view of man was a healthy view for a politician to have.
Mr. Marshall then mentioned criminal law, for most crimes were breaches of morality which community consequences. He said the Government would be busy this year with its revision of criminal law compared with modern attitudes—property had been considered more important and people less when the law had originally been passed. In such ways the ideals of Christianity could make an impact on the application of criminal law.
He mentioned the social implications in the gospel of love illustrated—i.e., problems of war and peace—saying that liberty and the inadequacies of democracy were preferable to the limiting advantage of a benevolent dictatorship. The problem of democracy was that as a rule it was the average level that more or less governed. As soon as legislative or moral issues demanding a higher level was discussed, this problem arose.
As an illustration Mr. Marshall mentioned the T.A.B. legislation which proved a bait for discussion) where the illegal was legalised because it was thought that people would gamble anyway.
There was a place for leadership not only in politics but also in the Church, which might help to raise the level a little higher. A leader who was too far ahead of the people in his ideals would soon be lost sight of and would be admired rather than followed; leadership should be just a little way ahead of the people. Personal relations between the government and the governed, as between employers and employees, gave ample opportunity for the application of Christian principles. One should not depend on the government and the members of Parliament alone to set the standard; it was important that the Church exert its influence in these fields. A religious spirit permeated throughout the community could do a great deal to raise the standards. I believe the Church today is exerting that kind of influence," said Mr. Marshall, while stating that this was the most effective influence.
After the talk there was a lively discussion which would perhaps have lasted indefinitely had not supper brought it to a close. In answer to these questions Mr. Marshall stated that moral issues could only be solved by the Church, not by law. Attacked on the question of the party system coming into conflict with Christian principles, Mr. Marshall seemed to imply that freedom to vote on moral issues was the only thing that mattered and that collective responsibility in the cabinet usually led to the wesest decisions. He did not, however, agree that rash promises made in electioneering campaigns were reprehensible. He also said that stable government was impossible without compromise—that was the only way in which one could get the world out of bed, dressed, fed, and back to bed again.
"Education in New Zealand is a sheep-yard where Calvin and Montessor Dewey and Dr. Arnold dance an awkward quadrille to the totem music of cash registers, Anzac speeches and plumping footballs."
The major economic defects of the Capitalist economic system lie in its essential unco-ordinated nature, "the boom-and-slump cycle", and the tendency towards over-production in certain industries.
Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to speak of the Capitalist system: there is no system, only the play of inpalpable forces. Amidst the chaos of competition, advertising and duplication of functions any co-operation is purely unconscious—unless in their own interests and not those of society capitalist employers co-operate to fixe prices, all the time sheltering behind the facade of "free competition".
Capitalism is defended on the grounds that it is automatic, elastic and responsive. By a spontaneous process supply is adjusted to demand and production to consumption. What these visionaries overlook is the unsatisfactory nature of the boom-and-slump cycle and the tendency owards over-production leading to a periodic saturation of markets. Again Capitalism is defended on the grounds that under it the multitudinous economic activities of the world are, so to speak, democratised; that they govern themselves with all the liberty and elasticity and variety of freedom; that a magnificent scope is offered to individual judgment and initiative and courage; that vested interests are hurled aside out of the path of economic progress. Such an analysis ignores the fundamentally despotic and undemocratic nature of Capitalism as illustrated by the general tendency towards "oligopolies" and the undue concentration of ownership in the hands of a few. It evades the fact that scope for initiative under an individualistic system leads inevitably to opportunism, anti-social speculation, exploitation and in-equalities. Again, vested interests are often a hindrance to economic progress. A business corporation will deliberately suppress a new invention if its marketing will interfere with the company's sales and profits.
A cardinal fallacy that finds favour only too often among the credulous public is the theory that production is controlled by demand. This is not the case. In most instances production is controlled purely by the plant's capacity to produce. Where the profit motive has the upper hand production tends to outstrip consumption. The gap can only be bridged by a genuine increase in purchasing power brought about by allowing the workers to have a proportionate share of the increased wealth which they assisted to produce. But as the well-nigh universal policy of capitalists is to secure all the advantages of increased production for themselves, this gap between production and consumption is not bridged. The result is a slump. The only solution to this fundamental paradox in Capitalism is to replace its chaos by an orderly economic system based upon economic planning. Only by such a method can we ensure that production is controlled by demand.
Automation—the mechanization of control in production—presents a signal threat to the Capitalist system. Because of the more rapid productivity increase that it implies, automation will aggravate any tendency towards over-production and threaten our economy with a slump. The social consequences will no doubt be worsened by the fact that the introduction of automation will be sporadic and unplanned. A more immediate problem is the large investment outlays that automation demands. A large and sudden change-over which may entail the scrapping of valuable existing equipment may well be beyond the re-sources of even the largest enterprises. A sort of "law of the jungle" will operate; the small and the weak must go under. It seems too that the imposition of automation from above can offer in the transition period only dismissals and unemployment for the workers and increased profits for the capitalists.
Recently Hugh Gaitskell illustrated a new trend in Capitalist development by pointing out that an increasing number of shareholders have no control over the companies in which they invest. This is a trend away from what one economist has described as almost Capitalism's Golden Rule—the association of control with risk. This is the proposition that where risk lies, there the control should likewise lie. Now what Gaitskell buttoned onto is the practise of issuing voteless shares. "Tribune", the English Labour weekly, gives us a few examples. Marks and Spencer has a capital of £208 million but only £4½ million of the stock carry voting rights. Control is in the hands of the Marks and Sieff families. Charles Clore's Sears Holdings has a capital of £27,600,000, yet only £7,800,000 have voting rights. Thus with only a small proportion of the capital, Mr. Clore can still control the empire. Great Universal Stores has capital of over £100 million. Only £15 million of shares carry votes, ensuring that control stays in the Wolfson family. This modern Capitalist development illustrates that no useful purpose is served by associating control with financial risk. It is not true that the power of making decisions will be most wisely exercised if it rests in the hands of those that stand to lose most heavily if the decision turns out badly. Nor is it true that the risks of industry will be most bravely shouldered if those who shoulder them are not obliged to hand over to others the power of making decisions about the use of the resources which they put to the hazard. What should be associated with control is not financial risk but rather actual production. If the producers themselves exercise control, this will act as a powerful incentive and stimulus. Since passable decisions, as Gaitskell has shown, are actually made in many companies by those who do not bear predominant financial risks, the spirit of the trusteeship which here receives a real if limited application is obviously capable of further development. It is only one further step to giving shareholders a purely passive role in industry with active conduct of affairs resting in the hands of the workers themselves.
The major anti-social feature of the Capitalist economic system is the distasteful inequality in the distribution of industrial power. Capitalism, being an oligarchy of Capital, by its very nature entails a sharp differentiation between those who own and plan and control and those who execute orders. Herein is the source of class-antagonism. The oligarchical nature of Capitalist industry is particularly objectionable in an age where there is a growing trend towards a diffusion of political power. Ultimately, as Strachey points out in his "Contemporary Capitalism", democracy and capitalism are incompatible; Strachey argues that the concentration of economic power must subvert democracy unless democracy succeeds first in transforming the economic system. This is the recognition of the fact that democracy is primarily an equalitarian institution; that it is not so much governed by consent (as Locke thought) or government by discussion (as Linsey and Barker suggest) but rather the recognition of the principle of equality in its political application. Political forms being largely related to property ownership, it is becoming only too apparent that a political system based on the recognition of equality cannot continue to go hand in hand with an economy based on inequalities. One must give way to the other. Which one will it be?
At a recent Executive meeting the proposal that the membership of the Executive be raised to fifteen by the acceptance of two extra representatives of the university was discussed.
No positive decision was reached, but several interesting points were raised.
Although there has been a growing number of committees which have tended to take a large portion of the detail off the Executive body, there is still a tremendous amount of work to be covered by members. The present secretary and treasurer have extremely onerous duties which the two present office holders are acquitting with efficiency but at the expense of their personal life and studies. It may be the case that the coming elections may return to these positions persons who are not so willing to sacrifice themselves to the same extent.
As opposed to this suggestion was, amid a lot of "mutual back-slapping", was the feeling that a bigger body would not be as efficient in meetings and would be the cause of a greater amount of repition among speakers. Also, as Mr. Zohrab pointed out, the Cabinet size in both Great Britain and New Zealand are composed of 13 members as this number has been found to be the optimum.
* * *
Incidentally it has been reported that Cappicade is Clean . . . (and two-thirds finished.)
* * *
Lubrication for the Haka Party seems to be a fairly expensive business.
* * *
The Christian Scientist Society are consolidating their position by seeking affiliation with their Mother Church in Boston, The First Church of Christ.
This year Miss Victoria has repeated her consistently dismal Easter performance; in fact we have notched up but one win in fifty-eight tournaments. The tabulated results and the individual sports reports tell their own story—a story for the iron-hearted only.
How badly did we do? (This paragraph is for non-table-readers only). The gloom is brilliantly relieved when cricket is considered—congratulations to Jim Zohrab and his minions on a good win—but gathers darkly over the rest of the picture. Excluding C.A.C. (Lincoln to you) who don't field a full team and consequently are not eligible for the Wooden Spoon, we scored a second in Rowing and tailed the field in Athletics, Basketball, Shooting, Tennis, and Swimming. In the unofficial events Victoria was second in the Drinking Horn (where were you, Kent?), second equal in the Law Moots, and last again in Yachting. Our congratulations to the winners of N.Z.U. Blues. There were: F. Crotty (Rowing), R. Irwin (Athletics), P. Preston-Thomas (Rowing), M. Winter (Rowing), R. Binning (Fencing from Winter Tournament). Cricket Blues are yet to be announced. Vic. men won two Drinking Blues also, but we were unable to discover their names by ordinary interrogatory means.
Let's face it. The plain fact of the matter is that we can't play basketball, or swimming, or even tennis, and we haven't been able to do all three together for a considerable time. Worse, our prospects seem to be as murky as our record. It is not easy to say why Vic. is so weak at most Easter sports. Do we lack facilities? or zeal? or tradition? or a Student Union building? or organization? or all of these? Our winter performances are in general very much better. But the morose conclusion forced upon us is that apart from cricket, and perhaps rowing, we just cannot (or did not) field a team of anything like the required standard. Having Massey to help us increases our shame, but is obviously not being effective in results.
The only constructive suggestion it seems possible to offer is that members of the appropriate sporting clubs get (i) 100% more Tournament conscious. We should hear of nothing in the caf. but better jumps, better swims, tricky new combinations, etc., for three weeks or so before the event; we should make more of team membership, and Tournament in general should loom large in our consciousness. As things are, one could easily complete a degree at Victoria without ever learning that Tournaments are hold. Clubs should also get (ii) organized and into training at the soonest possible moment. Even that is too late; what needs doing is the impossible—perhaps a squad of "possible" meeting before the term begins.
"Salient", following a tradition longer than my memory, has repeated the annual What-a-good-team-we've-got-at-last-hooray-success-is-ours forecast, and is now obliged to make the Oh-well-the-other-teams-were-stronger-than-we-thought-or-we-didn't-live-up-to-ex-pectations-which-is-a-pity apology cum excuse which the result chart requires. This is a foolish procedure, and I hope future editors writing of future Tournaments will be more restrained in their expectations (and of course more jubilant in their report).
The N.Z.U.S.A. Council and the N.Z.U.S. Press Council met in Christchurch during Tournament, and from all appearances enjoyed successful, if lengthy sessions. We record our pleasure at the election of two Victoria men, Bernie Galvin and Con Bollinger, to the presidencies of these respective bodies.
It is a hard matter to decide just how important sporting success is at a sporting tournament like this, and doubtless one's view is jaundiced by our outstanding lack of it; but this reporter failed to find a single Vic. representative (including himself) whose weekend was in any way spoiled by it, and the gusto and success (every bit up to OU's) with which our people talked, drank, laughed, danced, sang, and walked home along the river, made winning daylight performances almost irrelevant. Anyway, the colour of an athlete's singlet should not detract from the spectators' enjoyment in watching a fine performance, so when not actually competing the team should have enjoyed the days also.
The Tournament, per se, was an unqualified success. The weather was good, the organisation was good, and students met each other in sport, conference, and socially, in a way that fulfilled the Tournament's proper function to an eminently satisfactory degree. Tournaments are, in the opinion of this reporter, a Good Thing, so let us continue to take part in them with enthusiasm, spirit, and be it hoped, a success on the field to equal that achieved in the non-competitive sphere.
Finally, "Salient" wishes to emphatically deny the rumour that at the next N.Z.U.S.A. meeting the Constitution is being amended to read . . . "and VUW shall be holders of the Wooden Spoon".
The less said about the recent visit of the Australian athletes to Wellington the better. They put on a display here that was worth while seeing despite a very strong wind at Hataitai Park. But the university athletes, with the possible exception of R. Irwin, were in hopeless condition, especially the first runner of the day, Walkey, the 880 man for Victoria.
"Never have so many been so unfit for so long:"
Once again Vic. had a nominally good Polo team, but once again it failed miserably at Tournament—Why? The team had only three weeks together before tournament and though good individually did not make a good, well-knit team. (In the seven men we had three Freshers and two non-Wellingtonians, because our "A" team throughout the summer was unable to make the trip). That our men were good is borne out in the selection of the North Island team. Auckland, the eventual winners of the Water Polo had four members of this team to out three (Terry Richmond—a reserve for the N.Z.U. team also; Theo Verhoeven and Conor Mc-Bride). Auckland and Canterbury had by far the best teams, each with seven men who had played together all summer. Graham Leach (N.Z.U. Polo captain and only N.Z.U. Polo Blue) and Keith Boswell stood out for Auckland, while Ian MacDonald and Findlay McKenzie stood out for Canterbury. The best game of Polo at Tournament was on Monday morning when Auckland met and beat Canterbury 5-4 in a hard but clean and tactical battle of brain and brawn. Our scores were v. Canterbury, lost 11-1; v. Auckland, lost 12-0; v. Otago, lost 5-3; and South Island won 6-4 against North Island. In the swimming all our competitors qualified for their finals, though not many were placed. Peter Hatch, our star swimmer, went down with 'flu on the Saturday and so was unable to swim again. Bill McCarroll was unlucky to be beaten for first place in the dive and Don Paviour-Smith could only make a third in the hotly contested backstroke. Diana Page was third in the women's dive but our best effort was put up by Stan Paris (Palm. Nth.), who was fourth in the 440, second one! in the 220, and third in the medley, all in excellent times. Fourth places (no points, of course)—well, Vic. had plenty—nine of them in fact. Let's hope they improve for Auckland next year.
In the women's events Otago dominated, Lindley Orbell ('57 and '58 N.Z.U. Blue) won three events and Otago girls were second in two and third in the other. The remaining women's events had Otago girls first and second except the dive which was won by Janet Spooner, of Canterbury.
Men—well the outstanding effort was undoubtedly Aucklander Graham Leach's record breaking butterfly swim (66.4s. for 100). Graham has been an N.Z.U. Blue for swimming and polo at the three Tournaments he has attended (
There were fewer N.Z.U. Blues this year as the longer 55 yd.) pool makes the standards harder to reach (the standards were the same as last year's for the 33 yd. pool).
Overall a good swimming competition marred by some irresponsible spectators at the finals—though, of coins, as usual the incidents were exaggerated by the daily Press.
Due to a particularly fine team effort backed up by the intelligent captaincy of Jim Thomson, Vic. scored a comfortable win in the cricket section of Tournament. After beating Auckland in a match at Kelburn Park, the team then beat Canterbury at Christchurch for the tournament title. The batting, which had been suspected to be brittle, showed steadiness, with everyone getting some runs and the bowling, with Campbell, Haskell and Thomson forming a dependable nucleus, was always strong. A big improvement in the fielding over that shown during the season also helped the team maintain its superiority over its opponents. Five members of the team, Thomson (capt.), Haskell, Coutts, Campbell, and Gibson were selected for the New Zealand University XI after the conclusion of the Tournament matches.
Results of the matches were:—
v. Auckland:
Batting first on a stiff wicket, Victoria found runs hard to get against a steady attack and it was not until after lunch when Thomson and Poulton put on some quick runs that the initiative passed to the batting side. The innings closed at 214 runs. Auckland lost 8 wickets for 113 in the period to stumps, due mainly to the fine bowling by Campbell and Haskell. In the second day Auckland managed to carry their first innings total to 130, giving Vic. a first innings lead of 84.
Vic.'s second innings was declared closed with a total of 249, for the loss of 5 wickets, Haskell's performance was particularly notable, in that he scored 50 in 13 minutes of play, and his innings included nine sixes. Auckland, needing 334 to win, collapsed in their second innings, and were all out for 117.
v. Canterbury:
Batting first, V.U.W. scored 142 against a very, accurate spin attack. As a result of some particularly fine aggressive bowling by Campbell, supported by Haskell and Thomson, Canterbury were bowled out for 98 in" their first innings. In their second innings, Vic. scored 166.
Canterbury then had only two hours in which to make 211, and in that time only managed 156 for seven wickets.
Although Victoria remained in its customery position at the bottom of the scale, there were encouraging indications that the standard is improving here, the number of place-getters having been greatly increased over last year's. Vic's place-getters were, in the men's events, R. Irwin, second in 440 yards; P. Joyce, first in 3 miles and second in 1 mile; M. Ulyatt, third in 120 yards hurdles; L. Saugagu, second in javelin throw; F. F. Duncan, first in discus; and D. Usher, second in the long jump. In the women's events Cherry Pointon was third in the shot put and the 4 x 110 yards relay team was also, placed third.
P. Joyce, F. Duncan and R. Irwin were selected for the N.Z.U. team for the test against the visiting Australians. All performed creditably and Irwin won a blue for his part in breaking the New Zealand record by three seconds in the 4 x 440 yards relay.
Victoria's high hopes for Tournament success in rowing were not entirely fulfilled as we had no wins, but, since we were only able to start in three races, two seconds was a creditable performance.
The regatta, held at Corsair Baiy in Lyttelton, was marred by continual delays. The eights race, scheduled for 8.40 a.m., did not start until well after 9 a.m., then, after two false starts, had to be further postponed. The water at this stage was too rough even for fours. Later on it calmed sufficiently for the fours and doubles to be rowed, although still rough in the middle part of the course. Both men's fours and double sculls were won by Lincoln. V.U.W.'s four, partly composed of members of the eight, was ineligible and after going into second place at the start of the double sculls, an unfortunate misunderstanding with the umpire resulted in their finishing last. In the women's fours the Victoria and Auckland crews soon drew away from the inexperienced Canterbury crew, with Vic. in the lead for the first quarter mile. Then the fitter Auckland crew drew ahead and finished with a lead of about two lengths.
The eights race was finally rowed at 4 p.m. and was most exciting, with a fight at the finish between Canterbury and Auckland for third place not far behind the two leading crews. After taking the lead at first Victoria was gradually overtaken by the strong Otago crew, but finished well with barely a length of clear water between the boats. Shortly after this race an N.Z.U. eight was selected to row against the Canterbury Provincial Colts Crew, and Victoria was gratified to find three of their members included, with P. Preston-Thomas chosen to stroke the eight. Others in the N.Z.U. eight were: Macdonald (O.U.), H. Calder (A.U.), Irwin (O.U.), Hurring (O.U.), Stokes (C.U.), M. Winter (V.U.W.), and F. Crotty (C.U.W.).
Greatest success for the V.U.W. team came, however on Tuesday night when N.Z.U. Blues were announced. Only four were rewarded for rowing, but of these three were received by Vic. representatives: M. Winter, P. Preston-Thomas, and F. Crotty; only one went to A.U.: C. Hurring. This was an outstanding success, particularly compared with our achievements in other sports.
After their three years' trial women rowers knew that their status in Tournament would be decided this Easter. It was: women's rowing is not yet admitted as an official part of Tournament. This decision was due almost entirely to the opposition of Otago University, who are understandably reluctant to admit, and thus give points to, a sport in which they feel they have good reasons for not participating. But it is surprising that other Universities, in one of which this sport is flourishing, should feel compelled to vote against women's rowing because Otago won't countenance it—that they can was shown by their producing two crews last year. After three years' trial this sport has shown no signs of dying in the other universities, although acceptance had to be fought for. However, nothing daunted, women rowers decided to make renewed efforts to strengthen their sport and overcome Otago's opposition; fortunately the nevt two Easter Tournaments will be held in Auckland and Wellington, so a race for the women will almost certainly be held, although unofficial competition outside the university is also increasing, so opportunities will remain for races during the season.
It is unfortunate that owing to lack of practice and insufficient time playing as a team, the basketball team must again report a failure at Tournament. However, despite the adverse scores the games were most enjoyable and except, perhaps, for the game against Auckland, we managed to keep our team play going reasonably well. In the first game on Saturday, against Canterbury, the play was very even in the first half and the half-time score was 5-5. Unfortunately our team tired quickly in the second half and Canterbury soon drew away, making the final score 8-16. The game against Otago was also a good one, despite the fact that it was clear from the start that Otago had the better team. Good work in our defence third often kept the ball away from the Otago forwards and the final score in this game was 5-15. On Monday the game against Auckland was much slower than the previous two and as we tired quickly it was with little difficulty that the accurate shooting of the Auckland forwards took the final score to 10-25.
Three of our players, Joy Mitchell, Helen Aitken, and Janice Fraser, were chosen to play in the North Island team for the North v. South game which was won by South.
Perhaps next year if we can have an earlier start for practices we may be able to do better at Tournament.
Again this team played its part in the retention of the "wooden spoon" by gaining fourth place in Tournament shooting.
Conditions were comparable in effect with last year at Dunedin and although the day was fine there was a tricky wind and the light creating shadows on the targets made it difficult for the V.U.W. team to condition themselves to the range. In the team Ian Newton was unlucky not to gain his second Blue and John Todd shot very well, showing that he will be a useful asset to C.U.C. nevt year. Both Ian Chatwin and Jim Mansell did not perform as well as they were expected to.
The three M.A.C. members of the team, John Elemers, John Withers and Stewart Picker, did not shoot up to expectations and will no doubt do better when they enter their own team next year. All in all, Easter coming early and no shoot off with M.A.C. and difficult conditions combined to make for Victoria "the sheer joy of participating" their only reward for
An experimental switch of the annual Drama Festival's venue from winter to Easter Tournament has proved abortive. After a decision made despite considerable misgivings, it was found that Easter is too early in the year to get a full-scale production on to the boards. Result: Auckland and Victoria fail to field teams (We know sickness aggravated matters, but still there wasn't enough time), and Canterbury and Otago decide that two doesn't make a festival. So we're back where we began, with the Festival planned for Winter Tournament this year, and for the Arts Festival (hollow laugh) in future years. It's just too bad that there is no suitable time for an Arts Festival.
The first scholar to come to New Zealand under the N.Z.U.S.A. South East Asian Scholarship Scheme, Wasisto Surjodiningrat, of Indonesia, has attained his M.Sc. degree in mathematics at Auckland University and has now returned to his homeland. This scholarship of £500 per year for two years, with a possible extension to a third, is financed by the New Zealand University students throughout the country. The conditions of the next award were to be discussed at the council meeting of N.Z.U.S.A. this Easter.
In December, N.Z.U.S.A. contributed £15 towards an International Student Conference Scholarship Fund which is to provide for a non-European student from the Union of South Africa who will study in London.
The artificial satellites do not exist and the whole world has been bluffed by Soviet propaganda.—Professor Varela Cid, director of aeronautical studies at the Higher Technical Institute, Lisbon.
After living on the crest of a wave for years, the United States of America is now experiencing a taste of the trough, as the current slump progresses. And when, as has happened, the professional optimism of the administration is sufficiently quelled for them to admit that the slump exists, albeit with voluble protestations concerning its temporary nature, then one can be certain that affairs are serious. This month such ubiquitpus news items as missiles, satelites, and so forth, have been completely displaced in business circles by the current level of business activity, and, even more, by talk of present unemployment. The figure for this latter rose by 1,100,000 in January, and by 700,000 in February, to a record post-war height of 5.2 millions. The actual figures for the total wages and salaries bill for February are not yet available, but the "Economist" of London thinks that when they do become available, they will show a decline of 1.1 billion dollars. The reduction in the amount people have to spend is only just beginning to make itself felt as falling sales, retail sales being down by 3 per cent. In the overseas field the United States is rapidly absorbing dollars from other countries.
So far the situation has been supported by the so-called "automatic checks", of which by far the most important is unemployment compensation, but it is questionable whether they will hold up under the assault of the February and March figures.
Some further indications: according to the Bureau of Labour, the average price of 22 basic commodities fell by nine per cent, in
With regard to unemployment—the number of areas with "substantial labour surplus" was
There have also been cutbacks in factory operations: steel ingot production is at only 70 per cent. capacity; automobile manufacture laid off 90,000 at the beginning of the year.
There is political as well as economic unrest, in the form of rivalry between Democrat and Republican factions with regard to their respective measures for correcting the situation. The Democrat leader, Senator Johnson of Texas, has prepared a carefully worked out campaign, complete with an even more carefully worked out publicity scheme. Vice-president Nixon, and other leading figures of the administration, on the other hand, appear to be terrified that prolonged slump conditions will produce huge, and rather left-wing, Democrat majorities in the coming November Congressional elections, and that the Republican party will then be finished for a generation. With this possibility, the Republicans are exercising every power to stop the, in economic parlance, "business recession". The present measures that the administration seem to have in mind have been described as "massive government intervention". Amongst the most immediately noticeable, from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, is the possibility of a substantial tax cut. So far, Congressional Democrats, with the exception of Senator Douglas of Illinois, the sole economist of the Congress, have been cautious concerning the advisability of such a step.
It has been said that when the United States sneezes, the rest of the world catches pneumonia, and the Sterling Area, because of its general dependence on trade, catches it worst of all. This idea, however, was falsified in the slight
The Government attends primarily to the material welfare of the community. Its legislation regulates the social relationship between the citizens.
Civil Law deals with problems of a minor nature: when the private interests of two individuals are at variance, the parties involved may take legal action. Should they prefer to settle the matter privately, they are perfectly free to do so.
On the other hand if interests of more serious nature are at stake which affect the community as a whole, the Crown might prosecute the offender in the name of Social Justice. The criminal is a social danger, against whom the Criminal Law endeavours to protect the security of the nation.
A civilised country respects the individual freedom of its citizens providing that it does not clash with the welfare of the community. As long as a person outwardly behaves himself in his dealings with his fellow men, the Government should not interfere with his private life. His way of thinking, his religion and ethical views are his own responsibilities. Morality affects man's conscience; if a person commits a sin, Ethic Justice imposes a punishment which lies in remorse.
Nevertheless the supporters of capital punishment believe that the Government should act as an instrument of Ethic Justice. The death penalty is the absolute demand resulting from a positive moral attitude. Because a life has been taken, it is decided that another life be taken in revenge after the principle "a life for a life". The nature of capital punishment is considered to be retribution for an ethic guilt.
However, such moralization does not come within the jurisdiction of Social Justice: the Criminal Law has a function to fulfil of a protective nature only.
The community can be effectively protected by lifelong imprisonment of the murderer, if necessary.
After all the Legislator does not reward the moral good; therefore there is no sound reason why he should take interest in moral evil as such when a murder has been committed. He should confine himself to the social repercussions of the crime alone: its moral aspects are a matter of conscience, a private affair between God and the sinner only.
From the spirit of the Gospel it does not appear, either, that the Crown has the right to act as an avenging moralizing Justice. We read in the Bible about the absolute command of love of one's neighbours and that God maketh His sun to rise upon the good and the bad. We must remember the Sermon on the Mount with its rejection of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We come across the assurance that there shall be joy in Heaven over one sinner that doth pennance more than over ninety-nine just who need not pennace. We should not forget that the woman taken in adultery was not reviled but sent away with the command not to sin any more. The bystanders were admonished that only he who was without sin was allowed to cast a stone at her. He, who has understood all this, would be quite justified in saying that the Gospel does not teach a blow for a blow, or to repay evil with evil. On the contrary the Bible teaches us to consider smallness and weakness, to guide the man who has gone astray, to practise mercy.
There are some arguments of a more practical nature against the idea of retribution in the Criminal Law. If punishment be founded on moral guilt, the deserved affliction will be light or cannot be applied in cases where the negligence is considerable, but the immorality often small. The criterion would equally fail with respect to a psychopath whose moral guilt decreases in the same rate as his abnormality increases. A problem would arise in connection with conscientious objectors and those who fight the existing legal order for the sake of what—in their opinion—is a better cause. Such a foundation would be catastrophic indeed: for action should only be taken against any individual because he harms the welfare of the community or endangers its security. The psychiatrists in particular are opposed to the doctrine of retribution. The believers in it endeavour to draw the line between those who get what they deserve and those whose cases must be dismissed because they are psychopaths who require medical attention. Psychiatry, however, cannot draw a line, but only knows graduation.
There would be another insurmountable difficulty: before inflicting a just punishment the Court should have to assess the degree of the offender's moral guilt. Yet a righteous person would have a greater sense of guilt than a corrupt one with regard to the same crime. It might even be greater than objectively should be expected.
From the foregoing it may be seen that there is no place for an Ethic Justice in human society. Consequently the death penalty should be abolished and replaced by imprisonment.
It may be quite rightly contended, that the convict will always be judged from a moral angle when it comes to a decision on the kind of punishment: Should he repent his crime, he may be leniently dealt with; if he does not show any signs of contrition, the punishment will be severe. However a rather psychological judgment on the inner motives of the criminal is possible without moralizing. Punishment of a social nature that follows, is not the same as retribution.
For its function is not expiation of a moral sin, but primarily protection of the community against a member who has proved to be lacking in social virtues.
The more dangerous and incorrigible the delinquent, the stronger the protection, the heavier the penalty. The imprisonment term would be longer, should it take longer to instill into him the social virtues.
Thus social punishment is a means of reformation also, since it prepares the convict for re-entry into the community as a good and respectable citizen. He may, of course, take the hardship of imprisonment as a pennance for moral aberration into the bargain. But that is his own private business.
A good prisoner, who makes the best of his penalty, may cease to be dangerous before he has served his sentence. Discharging him would be a logical thing to do, but this seems undesirable. Further detention does not necessarily turn the punishment into a form of retribution: its justification lies in the deterrent effect it has on the community.
Lastly, imprisonment has a distinct advantage over capital punishment. Revision of the sentence will always be possible in case the convict appears to be innocent afterwards.
The death penalty is so final. For one must never forget the admonition of the wise Laotse: "He who handles the hatchet for the Master-Carpenter, seldom escapes injury to his hands."
Dr. Morrison, former president of the New York Academy of Sciences, lists in his book "Man Does Not Stand Alone" seven reasons for belief in God.
First, by unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our Universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence.
Second, the resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a manifestation of all pervading Intelligence. Life itself is fathomless. A growing root will crack a rock. . . .
Thirdly, animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good creator who infused instinct in otherwise helpless creatures. Thus at maturity millions of eels will migrate from all ponds and rivers everywhere, all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda.
Fourthly, man has something more than animal instinct—the power to reason. So no other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count to ten, or even to understand the meaning of ten.
Fifthly, provision for all living beings is revealed in the phenomena such as the wonders of "genes". So unspeakably tiny are these genes that if all those responsible for all the living in the world could be put in one place there would be less than a thimbleful of genes provides the absolute key to all human characteristics.
Sixthly, by the economy of nature, we are forced to realise that only infinite wisdom could have forseen and prepared with such astute husbandry. Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the world? Because they have no lungs as man possesses they breathe through tubes. But when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ration to the increasing size of the body.
Seventhly, the fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof. The conception of God rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world—the faculty we call our imagination. By its power man, and man alone, can find the evidence of things unseen.
Truly it is said that "the Heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork."
—From "the Precious Secret" by Fulton Oursler.
Francophile—which, being interpreted, means French for the rank and phile.
Under a competent and enthusiastic (?) redaction-ad-absurdum, Tom Goddard and Donella Palmer, the French Club, apparently in collaboration with anyone they can lay hands on, have produced a publication aimed expressly at the literati of the university. This august work appears in foreign tongues only, though the sponsors threaten to publish in any foreign tongue in which contributors wish to express themselves.
We are assured that this is no empty vaunt, and the editor claims to have already located potential contributors in German and Russian. While we ourselves confine our efforts to the mother tongue, we are glad to find that there are in this place people with sufficient whatever-it-takes to use other languages; in fact, the whole venture deserves, and gets, our approval.
The first issue contains apologia from the editor (why we feel that this is necessary, etc), and from John Fowler( why you should have done enough languages to understand what I'm saying . . . ), a short story by John Trotter, a report on a Baudelaire centenary exhibition in Paris, a discussion of the problems facing those involved in French orals, and some odd quotes, drawings, etc. Altogether an interesting and varied piece of work, written with a competence this reviewer will not call in question.
The French Club, or perhaps more accurately the Redaction (Editorial Staff to you), plan to publish monthly in the meantime, and are ambitious for fortnightly appearances. "Une ample comedie aux cent actes divers" is what they ultimately have in mind, so if you want to have a share in the most daring and original piece of journalism to adorn our cultural horizons in a long while (or something), then see if you can read issue 1, and having managed that, rush your contributions on any topic relevant to the promotion or stimulation of Foreign Language Studies to the appropriate people.