Salient. The Newspaper of Victoria University College. Vol. 19, No. 8. July 1, 1955

IUS Again ... — Editor Has Last Say

IUS Again ...

Editor Has Last Say

Dear "Salient,"—Why don't you behave yourself and stop making your old" uncle keep taking you to task. Last time it was for inaccuracy—a serious fault in a student newspaper, though it was in my favour rather than otherwise. This time it is for plain bad manners, and not at all in my favour.

As a footnote to an article by C.B. (whose identity I hereby reveal as being identical with my own) in your issue of May 5, you state: "The correspondence will close next issue with Mr. O'Brien's reply." Now, though Mr. O'Brien's reply did not eventuate in the next issue as prophesied. It was apparently your intention to publish it, and to put full-stop to the controversy on IUS. Let me remind you that it is the time-honoured practice of all journals of standing, and of "Salient" in particular, to allow the person who made the first contribution on a subject to have the last word. In this case, that was C.B. Moreover C.B.'s first article was written and sent Co you not at his own instigation, but at yours.

There are a couple of other points in your footnote which call for comment.

You state that "This verbal debate appears to concern only Messrs. O'Brien and 'CB." I don't know what sort of debates one CAN have other than verbal ones—unless the sort with gestures only, described by Rabelais—but any way, a considerable number of persons about the college have deduced by some lngenious process that I must be "C.B.", and have started oral continuations with me of the debate that appeared in "Salient."

Your cheap sneer about Congress motions having no significance to the people who pass them merely assures me that you have never been near Curious Cove.

With avuncular affection.

Conrad Bollinger.

The Editor, "Salient."

Dear Sir.—I do not suggest that I have the last word in the controversy between "C.B." and myself, as I did not start the controversy. His letter in your May 5 issue adds little that is new. Let me just comment on some of his facts:

1.	Somebody must have established a "reasonable case" against the IUS attitude towards Yugoslavia, because IUS has in the last year or so, been making desperate efforts to get the Yugoslavs back into the fold. Perhaps it was just another case of everyone jumping automatically when the party line is changed.
2.	I leave your readers to judge the origins of the Korean war.
3.	"C.B.'s" recital of events in Czechoslovakia reflects little more than a vivid imagination.
4.	There is no national union "Cosec affiliate" in Slam or Pakistan. The Philippines national union is fully representative. As secretary of the Istanbul Credentials Committee, I can claim some knowledge of this, and also refute "C.B.'s" sneer about "pet organisations of corrupt despotisms in Latin America and South-East Asia." The leaders of two Latin American delegations had been violently opposed by their Governments which had sponsored opposition candidates against them. One was gaoled for the duration of an election. The leaders of yet another had Co go into exile last year. Hardly the treatment for pots!
5.	If the Ford Foundation had paid my fare. I would have been duly grateful, but it did not contribute a cent.
6.	"C.B." has either not studied political science or cannot count. His figure of "15 democracies" is noiselessly inaccurate. As for countries where full politically democratic rights may not exist, the important question is the extent of the democracy in the student unions. All Istanbul participants passed on this count.

In conclusion, I did not speak to the motion at Curious Cove, having departed at least four days earlier. This was no doubt convenient for some people who, I am told, misquoted me to support their arguments in support of the motion. As a matter of interest, the British National Union has now withdrawn from its short-lived experiment of associate membership in IUS.

M. J. O'Brien.

The Editor, "Salient."

Dear Sir,—Thank you for giving me the right to reply to Mr. O'Brien—though I must confess I had taken that right for granted. Some comments on Mr. O'Brien's comments on my facts:

1.	If IUS has been making "desperate efforts" to get the Yugoslavs back in IUS "in the last year or so," IUS policy must be at least "a year or so" ahead of any noticeable changes in the "party line."
2.	If every reader had access to all the facts, and not just what it pleased the daily press to publish, they would certainly be able to judge the origins of the Korean war.
3.	Similarly, concerning the Czech crisis of 1948.
4.	Thanks to Mr. O'Brien for the admission about Slam and Pakistan. He quotes me quite out of context on "pet organisations." I am quite aware of the Latin American cases he cites, and others, too. All the representative student groups in that quarter of the world also retain their link with IUS.
5.	I apologise to Mr. O'Brien. But I have checked with several others who heard him speak at Congress, and he distinctly stated that the Ford Foundation met "all expenses" of the Istanbul Conference.
6.	Count again. Mr. O'Brien. And in countries where the social pattern precludes equality of opportunities in education, what hope is there that students will be imbued with the spirit of democracy?
7.	The rest of my arguments go unanswered.

C.B.

(We cringe beneath your avuncular whip, "C.B."

1.	The "bad manners" are in your favour.
2.	It was intended that you should reply to Mr. O'Brien's final article.
3.	It is correct that "Salient" asked for the original IUS article.
4.	Oral continuations of the debate, between readers and yourself, do not concern "Salient." The statement was made referring to further contributions to the discussion through our columns, by correspondents other than yourself or Mr. O'Brien.
5.	The editorial remark about Congress motions has not been disproved.

The correspondence is now closed.—Ed.)

Apathy

The Editor. "Salient."

Dear Sir.—Have you ever noticed the pack of "morons" who trudge up to that menagerie "on the hill" every day. These "morons" are supposed to represent men and women who will be in responsible professions in the near future (?): but the more I see of the cliquey nature of the outfit and the actions of some of these types in public, the more ashamed I am of being a member of VUC. Sure you say that throughout the world students are known for their antics but here they are so "corny."

And now to the elections at present taking place—you will note that at the last elections 33 per cent of Student Association members voted, and I'm surprised that that many troubled to vote, and I will lay big odds that 80 per cent of the 33 per cent didn't know much about the "drongoes" (with apologies to exec.) they were voting for and these elections will be the same.

Most will endeavour to make their choice of exec. from the paragraphs in "Salient" or the photographs on the notice-board which appeared on June 16. but I had a fair indication of the men standing to enable myself to vote but not knowing anything about the ladies I could not honestly and did not therefore make a vote for women members of exec.

Surely there could be a meeting at which all the candidates for exec, could be given three minutes to talk or some other arrangement arranged where a person could gauge the candidate's worth much better.

Enough of elections and now Mr-Editor to that "dry bull" publication "The People's Vice" otherwise known as "Salient"; it is not worth the paper it is written on—who wants to know about NZUSA delegates to Cosec or their worthiness of participation in Cosec which took up a total of one page in the last issue of "Salient" or the debate on "State subsidies to schools" which could have been reported in one small paragraph.

Surely there is something else of general interest to students which could fill up the paper but I suppose one cannot expect anything else considering my opening remarks.—

Yours faithfully,

Mince Public Enemy No. 1.

P.S.—I hope that this letter will appear in an unabridged form. Thanking you.

(Normally such an ungrammatical conglomeration of verbal cast-offs would not be published.

1.	Regarding lack of knowledge of the voters—we agree. The point is that it is possible to know the candidates by taking an active interest in student affairs.
2.	Regarding electioneering: it was mooted and last at last year's AGM, that electioneering be allowed. "Salient" favours meetings of candidates and the "morons."
3.	Your remarks about "Salient" are neither pregnant nor mature: they are still-born. You will forgive us for being so incredibly naive in assuming that readers are interested in what happens to their money. Their interests and their representatives. "Salient" considers the matter important; space was allocated accordingly.
4.	Similarly with debating reports. "Salient" considers the Debating Club possibly the most important at VUC: your disinterest merely indicates your lack of values, or ours, depending how you look at it.
5.	Possibly there is something else of general interest to students which could "fill up the paper": the onus is upon readers to inform "Salient" on their desires in this matter. Until such a tangible expression of student opinion is received "Salient" policy remains much the same.
6.	Finally destructive and uninformed "opinion" such as yours is not criticism, informs no-one and indicates solely your own muddled thinking and immature expression.—Ed.)

'For [Disc]Ussion'

Sir.—For a considerable time I have had in my possession a flat black object, spherical in shape.

Along the surfaces of this thing I notice there runs a narrow grooved line.

Is this a record?

Your etc.

B. C. [unclear: Gosman].

▼ About this page

Other formats

Connect

▼ Browse collection