Speakers came to Friday night's debate armed with strong reasons why the Professorial Board's ban on the discussion of sex and religion should be lifted. But the best argument was the debate itself. It proved that a Varsity debate can be an orderly affair, and that students are capable of debating such subjects with dignity, wit. and clarity of mind. This was made apparent to all who attended, and for those who did not, we can produce a Methodist parson to back us up. Of 150 people present, only 10 voted against the motion. As supporters of the motion included Christians, agnostics, law students and one Confucian, we may regard the resolution as representative of V.U.C. opinion, and the deputation which will approach the Professorial Board on the subject can truthfully say they have more than 90 per cent, of the students behind them.

Struggle for Freedom.

"Historically," said Mr. Aimers, "Universities have made a continual fight for academic freedom, to prevent control of their staffs in the views they may hold, and for the principle of free expression in teaching. The obstacle to attaining this freedom is the fact that most Universities have to rely on finance from outside. This dependence renders them subject to outside control, and any freedom they have they must struggle to maintain." The present ban was originally imposed in 1933, during the nadir of the depression, when New Zealand had a [unclear: reactionary] of Education. He traced the history leading up to the ban, and the part played by the Welfare League and Canon James. The report of the College Council following the ban was one which the University could look back on only with shame. The governing body of the College discarded a principle for which Universities had struggled for centuries, and admitted the sanctity of majority opinion.

"This ban was imposed because of outside pressure, and on that ground alone we feel Justified in asking the Professorial Board to remove it. It was merely a result of the depression."

The Opposition.

"When the exchange rate was raised." said Mr. McCulloch for the negative, "It was done under special circumstances. But Just that those circumstances have changed is not sufficient reason for lowering the rate now. In the same way we are not concerned with what happened in 1933, but with disproving that the ban should be lifted now." Because they were very individual and personal subjects, sex and religion were unsuited for debate. The conduct of previous debates had shown that it would be most inadvisable to remove the ban. We had no lack of other subjects to discuss. Debates on sex and religion would defeat the purposes of debate by arousing unnecessary animosity. He touched on the dangers of such debates to the immature minds of the Training College students.

Miss McGhle discounted his statements about T.C. Teachers had to instruct young children and needed sound ideas on such subjects. Debates provided the interchange of ideas which helped to form a philosophy of life.

Diversionism.

Mr. J. P. Lewin claimed that the ban did not stifle discussion. To say it did was an insult to students intelligence. Information and discussion on sex and religion could go on in private, which was preferable to a "public brawl like the last debate." Under mob influence, emotionally unstable adolescents [unclear: wo] not think analytically, but rely on emotional convictions. Taking sides on such personal matters caused social disintegration, by rousing animosities which would continue in other fields and affect political solidarity, playing into the hands of mischief makers and reactionaries. It was bad tactics for progressives to divert their activities into unprofitable personal antagonism. The question of the effect of the discussions on abnormal psychology also had to be considered.

"I think Mr. McCulloch is an anachronism and that Mr. Lewin should have given his speech living down" was how Derek Freeman began. He pointed out the danger of thoughtlessly accepting traditional opinions—opinions which had for their outlet all public sources or information—press, radio, schools and universities. Debates, by stimulating individual thought, countered this danger. On the question of sex: "It is no use trying, to stop a bad smell by putting the lid on the dustbin—you have to clean It out."

Said Mr. McDonald: "Hitler is encouraging women to have platoons of babies by fair means or foul." He contrasted Hitler's methods with those of the Soviet Union, which encouraged sex discussion and doubled the birthrate.

Mr. Braybrooke supported the negative, stating that as we got our money from the government we should not run the risk or offending the public. Replying to this later. Mr. Aimers said:

"I feel most student, art with me when I say that rather than submit to such a humiliating principle, the University would prefer to bold its lectures in a tin shed with no government assistance at all."

Mr. Wall, following an interjection, referred to the ignorance of most of us concerning Confucianism, and illustrated the value or discussion on religion by the possibility of securing converts for Confucius after live minutes' talk. There were a number of other speakers from the floor.

The Honours.

The Judge. Professor Shelley, talked for thirty-live minutes, mainly on Aimers's pronunciation and the tactics of the affirmative in debating on freedom of speech rather than on the specific motion. We were glad to have rulings from him on certain pronunciations which even dictionaries are not dogmatic about. His placing were: Mr. Braybrooke, first: Mr. Wah. second: Mr. Lewin. third.

—H.W.G.