Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 11, No. 4. April 7th, 1948



Dear Sir,—

I wish to make reply to the indigenous questions of your correspondent, "Puzzled." The reference to a gag at the foot of my letter is brought about by the fact that I doubt whether you will see your way clear to printing this, and, anyway, my views must be restricted in this matter in deference to the Editor's opinion.

Question one. Answer. Certainly, once a society opens its doors to Communists then it opens its doors to Communism. Witness the events in Czechoslovakia where—or so it was maintained at a recent debate—alleged democracy exists because the Communists have the support of the Socialists. This must be the inevitable result or any system which admits of Communists' ideals. Conversely, if it is claimed that there were no Communists in the Czech Socialist Party then the evidence is all the more strong in favour of the fact, that where stands a Socialist there stands a Communist. For what is the difference between Socialism and Communism if in the end, both are to ally for the benefit of Communism? Therefore, I suggest that the three Socialists on the late executive represent Communist influence. If you add to these, two negligibles who will send a letter to a foreign power for a joke, and the four members, posely listed under the heading, "etc.," you have nine members who ore likely to be swayed by whoever talks the [unclear: loud] the ones who make the [unclear: most] this college are the [unclear: Socialist] para. 4) and since ([unclear: proved] the local Socialist Club [unclear: refle communist] principles, it is [unclear: possibly] how the executive can be [unclear: Corw] controlled.

Question 2: Answer. Possibly because—
(a)The letter would not be approved anyway; or
(b)The letter could not go without his approval; or
(c)He wished to disassociate himself from it entirely.

In any event, if all had followed his lead originally recission would have been unnecessary.

Question 3. How can it be? The only reason that occurs to me is that it would seem that the Executive originally passed the motion knowing full well the opinion of the students. If it didn't know the feelings of the students, it was not fit to be [unclear: in] power anyway. An Executive [unclear: which] could pass such a motion in the [unclear: first] place, no matter what it did [unclear: later] under pressure—showed itself incapable and unconstitutional. If it was necessary for a thousand students to demonstrate before the Exec. knew the students' will, it was certainly high time we elected another one. Summed up, it is this: The Exec. ignored the students until it feared them. Therefore, it paid the price of its temerity.

Question 4. Despite the [unclear: fact] one Socialist can make [unclear: more] than three ordinary people [unclear: (wf] the fact that the public, [unclear: until recently], considered us "a pack of [unclear: Communists]") It would seem as [unclear: though] he was outvoiced at the [unclear: general] meeting. Is this what your [unclear: correspondent] complains about? Or, [unclear: alternatively], can it be that the [unclear: Other] opinion was that shared by the [unclear: correspondent] and his mess-mates. [unclear: If] his or her opinions got a rough time it was solely because a certain section of the students who up to now had been showing the value of "loud voice tactics" upon a majority, had the other evening, the opportunity of viewing the same tactics in operation against a minority.

If your correspondent was correct in his assertion, it would point to a lesson well learnt, by a majority which, all too often in the past has been, as I am now, sir, in voicing my opinion in this your paper.