Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria University College, Wellington N.Z. Vol. 21, No. 6. May 28, 1958

A Complaint . .

A Complaint . . .

The latest action of the executive regarding censorship (which led to that apology so symbolically set in a black border) makes it necessary for all students to think about the future of "Salient".

It seems clear that we are in for a period in which the heavy hand of censorship will strangle criticism before it gets a chance to appear in print.

Somehow the executive appears to be liable for the content of the magazine and one can understand that in that case the more timid souls are likely to be cautious to the extent of being cowardly. What other reason can there be for the rule forbidding correspondence concerning the cafeteria?

But why should the executive be responsible for the magazine? Because of the subsidy it grants? Because of its lofty position? Whatever the reason, it seems to me that it should be possible for students to bring out their own magazine, quite separate from our august student leaders.

True, that would be a little more difficult. But there is no reason why such a magazine should not have a modest start, for instance, as a stencilled sheet. The easiest part, of course, would be the name. I suggest that it be called "Guts".

Meanwhile students are entitled to know just who voted for or against just what motion concerning the printed apology and censorship. Does the Executive (at least one member of which will read this letter before it appears in print—if it does) dare to let students know just who voted for what? That is not a rhetorical question and the executive is invited to supply the answer in this issue. Does it dare to do that?

Or did the Executive by any chance discuss the censorship question in committee? Did it? Why? And if it did, does it still dare to let us know how the voting went? And who originated that rule about no criticism in "Salient" of the cafeteria? May we know that, too? Was a vote taken on that? How did that vote go? And which of the comrades acts as censor? Are any principles laid down guiding him? What are they?

And while we are at it, is it possible (legally, constitutionally, etc.) to grant a subsidy to "Salient's" management and to let that management be completely responsible for the magazine subject only to a provision ensuring that the grant does not disappear in individuals' pockets? Can that be done? Will it be done?

—J. Schellevis.