page 2

That Hallowed Tradition

Salient's tradition has two parts, one red, by which is meant reflective of Socialist and Communist ideas and ideals, and the other that set out by Old Timer in our first issue of 1951. The second part is in keeping with the traditional rights of criticism and intelligent vigilance which belongs to a University.

These two are not synonymous and their apparent coincidence for thirteen years has been as much the result of expediency as of reason.

Expressed in vigorous and often emotive prose this "double tradition" earned Salient the title of "red rag."

It was not the Old Timer tradition, although of course many fainthearted and woolly-minded oppose that too, not the espousal of causes worthy and unworthy that rankled. The irritant was supplied by the red tradition with its own peculiar approach so often echoing, following and changing with the Party line of Communism. Salient's mind has been so made up, so blind to the protests and achievements of other people as to give it an air similar to that which has become the hallmark of Stalinist-Leninist-Marxim. There was, it appeared, a Salient way of sucking a lollipop, an anti-fascist way, a way which only the very left had discovered or dared to proclaim.

Some of the staff, not including the Editor, are in sympathy with both parts of the tradition. All the Staff agree with Old Timer. Those who disagree with the red tradition do so for various reasons but mainly because they see both possible political choices to be imperfect. One, Communism more than the other. Taking an overall view Communism is a greater evil, for Capitalism at least allows some independence of thought.

By adopting this basic attitude of chosing the lesser of two evils it is possible, for example to judge the Korean intervention. The United Nations is justified since the aggressor was clear, although the resolution was illegal. In the waging of war, however those who do not accept the red tradition can and do criticise both sides, including the forces of the United Nations since it does not imply perfection for them.

Political dogmatising is a foolish process particularly by the ill-informed and even more so when the decision is dictated by a tradition that Socialism and/or Communism is certainly right and Capitalism certainly wrong in every instance.

In a University newspaper a more impartial approach is necessary. Criticism and discussion, bitter and ruthless argument is desirable but not an approach predetermined in every circumstance, in all aspects. The policy should be directed towards a fair treatment of every question.

A Salient Editor, rightly unable to impose his view or refuse copy can only encourage impartiality by balancing copy if there is sufficient offering, correcting gross errors of fact and by use of the editorial.

Every effort will be made to be impartial, to follow Old Timer's tradition and provide a forum for student opinion. It can never be assumed that the Editor or all the staff agree with staff articles or even with the general tone and bias of any issue for that depends entirely upon contributors and the Staff.