Lack of Lunch-Time Play

Dear Sir.—The much-talked-of Student Union Building is obviously a thing of the far distant future I am not complaining about this, because there are good reasons for it. But in the meantime could there not be some effort made to provide facilities (other than the Caf. and common rooms which are unsatisfactory anyway) for bringing full-time students together more during the day?

There is, I am told, a Film Society in the College. Would it be possible for the society to provide film showings during lunch-hours at a small charge per head? The Music Society did a great job last year with its lunch-hour concerts by leading local musicians, and the only criticism offered is that we could have done with many more such concerts.

So long as we have no common common room, and an inadequate cafeteria, something along the lines suggested is, I think, very necessary.

Lack of Amenities

Dear Sir,—I wish to [unclear: draw attention] to the deplorable [unclear: lack] of facilities for students in the Men's Common Room. The reading desk would [unclear: perhaps] serve a more useful purpose if there were [unclear: something] to read. Copies of the student papers from other colleges in New Zealand and overseas were available at the beginning of last year but faded away to the shredded "Dominion" by the end of May.

The seating has to be sat upon to be appreciated and apparently was constructed without any reference to anatomy . . . The (cuspidors) which also serve as ash trays, depositories for newspaper, lunch wraps, apple cores .... are inadequate for the students at (peak) hours .... As the Union will not eventuate for some time could the executive possibly consider improving the conditions of leisure for male students.

The women's common room is also in need of renovation and the common common room could also do with existence.

(We suggest that students (male) refrain from chewing tobacco, reading newspapers, eating lunches, apples . ... at peak hours. Abridged.—Ed.)

Lack of Union

Dear Sir,—I wish to bring up once again the one question—vital to all students of Victoria College—what is being done about the Student Union Building? I, along with many others, are sick of the continual haggling, bickering, red tape and procrastination which shrouds any immediate action towards getting the building under way. Both the College Council and the VUCSA executive have much to answer for. From Information I have received, it is unlikely that any more action can be taken until 1910, but the difficulties (put to me) are not convincing. First, the tennis courts must be resited. The proposal to put them by the Geography huts has been turned down until the new science block is constructed. Is this wait necessary?

Why cannot a private Bill authorising the transfer of land from the R.C: authorities to Council be put through Parliament this forthcoming session?

We want a Student Union Building and we want it now—not 1960—Exec., get onto the job! Stop sitting around the table at exec. meetings looking like a pack of stuffed relics from a distant age—loosen your ties, roll up your sleeves and get stuck into a concerted effort.

(The Secretary of the Association, when approached for a statement, fingered his tie and pointed out that considerable progress has been made over the past year as stated in the first issue of "Salient." Abridged.—Ed.).

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.)