A Correction

Dear Sir,—In an article on the front page of your first issue, you attribute to me the highest powers of persuasive oratory. You report that, as a result of my defence of IUS at Curious Cove, the Congress carried a resolution in favour of NZUSA applying for associate membership in IUS.

Now while this is very flattering. I am afraid it is inaccurate. I certainly defended IUS to the best of my ability against the assault made on its good name by Maurice O'Brien and other Co-Sec. protagonists. But the resolution which was carried did not refer to "associate membership." but to "closest practical liaison." which may or may not, in the circumstances which "confront us. mean the same thing.

The actual text of the resolution appears in an article elsewhere in this issue. But the story behind it does not, and as that story casts some light on the possible source of your inaccurate report, allow me to state it briefly. The resolution was moved by Mr. Mummery, of VUC, and seconded by an ex-VUC student new at Otago Med. School. The resolution was discussed fully and with some heat, some opposing it as being "too left." others as being "not left enough." Among the latter, Mr. Stone of AUC moved an amendment replacing the words "closest practical liaison" with "membership," in order to sharpen the issue. While my feelings [unclear: re] much in tune with Mr. Stone's, I was also of the opinion that the students present had not sufficient facts at their disposal to recommend this concrete step, and also that whet-ever was carried should have the heaviest possible majority in order to carry weight with NZUSA Council. Accordingly I spoke against Mr. Stone's amendment, and I think he withdrew it. Certainly it was Mr. Mummery's resolution, not Mr. Stone's amendment which was carried, and by a big majority.

"Salient" used to have a good record of fair and accurate reporting. This report was more than fair to me, and it was substantially inaccurate.

(Mr. Bollinger's concern at the lack of Information at students disposal is somewhat relaxed by his article on IUS in this issue. As for inaccurate reporting, the editor was not at Congress and oar chief reporter, who was, had to rely upon his memory for the text of the resolution. Our regrets to Conrad—Ed.)