Editorial Comment

Salient Editors are usually interested in the effects of journalism and pamphleteering. Last night's meeting was a psychologist's paradise, for among the 1,000 students who "deliberated" on the question, of the right of our democratically elected representatives to our confidence, there was a large body who reflected the current highly-emotional atmosphere created by our daily press. There is a witchhunt against Communism and anything which can be labelled Red.

How many of the howling mob who voted against censure and for no-confidence are interested in the affairs of the Executive and those of the Association? Their sole objective was to scalp a "Communist controlled" Executive, not on the basis of their Executive ability, but on political issues.

There are many who believed that they judged the case on its own merits but where were the speakers who could contrast the handling of our affairs by our late representatives with that of previous Executives? Where were the speakers he could put the relative importance of the rescinded motion alongside the very positive contributions of that body to student affairs? Only one speaker had the chance to attempt it and he had a rough time of it. The gag motion of closure was put before the meeting long before the real case at issue had been discussed.

If this is the way student opinion is to be gauged then the University is no longer a bastion of reason.