"Breach of Trust"

Let us hope that we will not have to suffer in the future the opinions of a person whose opposition to Communism and dislike of Eden have become so uncontrollable as to degenerate into irrationality. "Salient" is a university newspaper. It is the Editor's duty to ensure it is one in fact, as well as in name. To allow a contributor to unleash an unfounded personal attack behind a nom-de-plume is not only deplorable but is cause for us to ponder whether the Editor has been guilty of a breach of trust.

[The front page this year shows that "Salient" is a newspaper, not an "organ of student opinion"; we must assume that the students are in[unclear: ellectually mound] and their opinions non-existent until more decide to express these opinions through our columns. Until that time "Salient" remains a newspaper. Polemic as a contributor presents his personal opinions and does not necessarily reflect or oppose this nebulous "student opinion."

The point that "Salient" is a university newspaper we doubt; judging by the interest taken in it and the use made of it. It is not the Editor's task to "ensure that It is one in fact"; that responsibility rests upon the readers and contributors. When the Editor beats his head against a brick wall in a futile attempt to gain some tangible expression of student opinion, he is willing—indeed has to—accept whatever opinions offer. A breach of trust. Sir? To allow an opinion to be presented does not constitute a breach of trust. Polemic's reply follows.

—Editor.]

The articles headed "Opinions Politic" are merely "opinion," and their whole object is to arouse interest—even heated criticism—among students on matters which should command their earnest attention. That object has, it appears, been achieved—at least in part.

—Polemic.

(Our edition—1947—of the COD shows no trace of the word "imper-tuable". Polemic also has not yet crossed tongues with it. After making enquiries, we are assured that the word is a compounded one and is "pregmant with meaning".

—Ed.)