One Pat, Two Smacks

First issue of Salient 1957 looks attractive, most of it was well laid out, and it seemed more informative and more entertaining than the first issues of the past few years. But why write editorials if you have nothing to say? And why don't you get a few of the starry-eyed variety of students to review films and plays? The cynical adolescent pose rubs a bit thin.

—Graduate.

That Man Again

The critique of "Merchant of Venice" was, I notice, signed L.D.A. is this the same tedious old gentleman who recently celebrated his 80th birthday in the "Evening Post"? if so, what the devil is he doing at V.U.C. at that age? Because I don't think our staff could teach him much. But even if he is among us, is that any reason why his senile vapourings should overflow the correspondence columns of the daily papers into the more precious (because less frequent) Salient?

—Disgusted

Decade-nt

It was with some surprise that I saw a photograph of Harry Evison (sometime Secretary. V.U.C.S.A., some time President V.U.C. Socialist Club) in the "Evening Post" (11.3.57) as one of the teachers departing for Indonesia, complete with Mr. Algie's blessing. The last time I saw a press photograph of this gentleman he was carrying a banner bearing "Hands off Indonesia" as its device. He was participating in a demonstration against the Dutch regime in Indonesia ten years ago, before that country became an independent state.

—"the Old Guard"

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?

The Road to Church

The pseudo-Byronic postering of your "State of the Union" leading article was a curious anachronism. Perhaps it gave the satisfaction of deceiving a few. But Byron had a degree of genius which makes any subsequent would-be-big-time, soul-torn profligate (intellectual of course), appear rather smalltime and outmoded. Between the lines one gathered that the leader writer would sooner or later compromise his faith in irresponsible ungoverned liberty as the way to wisdom, by respectably marrying in a church and settling to a more rational wav of life. Then, perhaps, he may feel a little ashamed of his inordinate revelling in the cruder aspects of juvenile behaviour.

The publication of a misleading article is however, not a legitimate enjoyment of irresponsibility for a leader-writer.—J.H.J.C.

Inquiry?

I trust the admirable editorial sentiments; "For . . . more important, is Passion" are shared by those responsible for the architecture of the new Student Union Building, in particular I refer to the mention in your front page article in the first edition to "a Games Room (for indoor sports)." I mean, will it be big enough?

—Player.