The Rule of Law

You claim that the co-option of Messrs. Bathgate and Mummery is a move "to swell the already oversized representaron of the Law faculty on the Executive." Many of your readers, unacquainted with the facts, may be misled by this fantastic, and completely inaccurate, statement.

Before the resignation of Messrs. Ward and Canham, the faculty position on Executive was: Arts—4 men, 5 women! Law—3 men; Commerce—1 man.

If the Arts students on Executive agreed with Salient (and at least one does) why didn't they nominate Arts students for the vacancies? The only member of that faculty whose name was put forward was Mr. Poison.

The present representation on Executive is: Arts—2 men, 5 women; Law—5 men; Commerce—1 man. So Arts still has a majority. And if Men's and Women's Committees are to be considered separately (which would support Salient's argument as far as the Men's Committee goes), the numerous women students from all faculties other than Arts are quite unrepresented! Do we hear Salient crying: "Injustice!"?

In my opinion there are more Law students than Arts students who are interested in student affairs. Consequently, if Salient advocates proportional representation, the Law faculty should have a majority.

—P.V. O'brien.

Editorial Comment: Mr. O'Brien's figures prove the total absence of Science students from Executive. Why, when one large faculty is quite unrepresented, should vacancies be used to swell the proportions of those already adequately represented?