"Immature and Prejudiced"

Sir,—It was with considerable disappointment that I read your editorial in the issue June 5th, containing, as it does, an immature outburst of prejudice, one might almost say an impression of personal frustration.

As one of the persons responsible for appointing you to your present position—a position, I feel, that is being abused by such efforts as your editorial—I wish to make it clear that I personally appreciate and desire honest criticism from the student newspaper, as it is often one of the few guides to student opinion open to members of the Executive in endeavouring to give concrete expression to that opinion.

But, Sir, it is beyond my powers of patience to tolerate an editorial that has as its central theme the criticisms of a particular group of persons for whom the Editor has formed a personal dislike. May I suggest that you could have attained your purpose just as effectively by four simple words: "I dislike law students."

But lest I should appear too ungrateful, I feel I must thank you for the compliment paid to my colleagues and myself when you state that past services and experience in student affairs have contributed largely to our present positions; perhaps, with broader and more mature experience, you will one day realise that wild idealism to attain its end must be tempered to meet the varied circumstances of the day. For example, an editor of Salient in contemplating a literary issue, must give due consideration to the question of finance and cost to the student body—if idealism is to treat such matters as immaterial, then I care little for your idealism.

It is not preferable that idealism and enthusiasm express itself in the field of club activity where, doubtless, it can and will serve a very useful purpose and to have an executive sufficiently experienced (and "conservative" if you will) to consider the merits and demerits of proposed schemes before involving the student body in liability? An executive carried away by idealistic visions, constantly embarking on excursions to "build castles in Spain" could hardly be considered as exercising its power and authority in the general interest.

If the only inspiration that proceeds from your enthusiasm and idealism is the prejudiced and immature efforts of your editorial then, sir, I am thankful that there are still some—be they law students or not—who are capable of a sane commonsense outlook on life, prepared to face facts as they are and mould their actions accordingly.

—D. B. Horsley.

[For an Immature, prejudiced and enthusiastic answer to this letter see the editorial opposite.—Ed.]

More To Come

Sir,—As we will probably be candidates at the forthcoming election, we do not consider it proper to comment on your last editorial at this juncture lest we be accused of electioneering. However, if the matter is still alive and whether we are elected or not, we will comment at a later date.

—M. J. O'Brien, Vice-president. F. L. Curtin, Secretary.

[This matter will probably still be alive after the elections. Other correspondence on this question will be welcome.—Ed.]

Dear Mr. Horsley ...

When the time came to write my editorial I thought that I had chosen my subject I was going to write on the duties of Exec. members as they appeared to one outside the charmed circle. I never thought for a minute that the President of the Students' Association was going to write to "Salient" and provide me with a letter that must (willy nilly) be the subject of my editorial. The letter—you see it opposite—gave me much food for thought, both on my own deficiences and on those of the Executive. My first inclination was to agree with Mr. Horsley on most of what he wrote, but then I paused and wondered whether or not my intentionally provocative editorial in the last issue had achieved its purpose. It had indeed stimulated the persons criticised into making a response, but there were no letters from others saying how right I was when I called the Executive "uninspired to the point of incompetence." Being a trifle more practical than Mr. Horsley would admit, I thought that it would be best to postpone my editorial again slating the Exec. and defend myself against the frenetic onslaughts of Mr. Horsley.

I am "immature"—yes, that I admit it is a psychological and physiological fact that I cannot alter. However, I cannot understand why the Executive, knowing my immaturity and the likelihood of my writing "immature outbursts," appointed me to my present position. Therefore I will give the Executive a chance to remedy their defective judgment—I resign the editorship of "Salient" as from Monday the 9th. And obviously since my position, to which Mr. Horsley helped appoint me, "is being abused," and since I am prejudiced against law students—according to Mr. Horsley, I am not a fit person to be editor of "Salient." My immaturity, my abuse of my position, and my prejudice are sufficient grounds, it may be felt, for my dismissal. Of course, if I were to be dismissed the Executive would have to prove my prejudice, etc., so I have given it the chance to do things the easy way.

A few remarks on Mr. Horsley's letter. I am not prejudiced against law students and I consider it impertinent of anyone to accuse me of prejudice when I point out the failings of any group in the College. The editor of "Salient" must at all times be impartial and unprejudiced. I think Mr. Horsley was acting unethically when he brought in the question of the proposed literary issue of "Salient"—this question as it is still before the Finance Committee for consideration should not have been mentioned in this context. The question of whether idealism and enthusiasm have a place on the Executive I leave open. This is a personal opinion and I would be pleased to hear from others on this point.

However, I will never stand by and see idealism and enthusiasm in student affairs knocked on the head and trampled underfoot by a non-progressive Exec.

T. H. Hill.