The Name of the Rose

During the Capping ceremony Mr Kitts, the Mayor, suggested that the present title 'Victoria University of Wellington" should be shortened to "the University of Wellington." This change would be made when the four universities become autonomous along with the dissolution of the University of New Zealand at the end of this year. The virtues of this proposed change would be that (1) "University of Wellington" is shorter; (2) Vic. would come into line with the rest of the Big Three; (3) it would be gratifying to the people of Wellington. It would help to integrate the university into the city. It would make people feel that the university "belonged" to them, as a respectable and valuable asset, rather than existed as a non-profit-making, non-ratepaying lascivious excrescence, serving to aggravate the labour shortage, and good only for a satisfactory scandal every now and then. This latter image is very common, even among some students, as we see from some of the silly "disgusted" letters that come in to "Salient."

Change Is No Answer

The first two reasons are not very important. The full title need not be used very often; and people can always refer to "the Universities of Canterbury, Otago, Wellington," if they want to. Regarding the third "reason," the change would not make any difference. Auckland University has the same name as the city of Auckland, and the degree of hostility and mutual contempt between University and Robinson's City Council has been extraordinary for years. Besides, it is very easy to persuade people to believe what they want to believe. To do the opposite is almost impossible. And mere name-changing would not remove any real cause of friction. It is one thing to try to integrate a university with a city; another thing to submerge it. A local daily [two newspapers "pushed" the proposal] recently referred to a group of sportsmen from "Wellington University." Somebody has already had the temerity to list Vic. in the latest telephone directory under "University of Wellington."

Our Objections

We object to the change for three reasons: "Wellington University" would not be formally correct; because, on the precedent of Canterbury and Otago universities, the names refer to the province, not the city. But Wellington province already contains another university, at Palmerston North. Misrepresentation, sir! Discourtesy to Palmerston North.

Secondly, the present name in its various forms sound pleasant: "Victoria University of Wellington"—impressive and sonorous. "Victoria University," " Victoria," " Vic.". " V.U.W."—handy, pleasant, and distinctive. But, "Wellington University" is an ugly, awkward mouthful. "The University of Wellington" is more a description than a proper name, and needs the continual use of the article. "Wellington" is far too easily confused with the City. "U.W." is nasty and "W.U." is impossible.

Thirdly, the name has been "Victoria" for 50 years. Why change it, just to gratify the whims and egos of petty businessmen and city councillors. Who can sanely doubt that the loss of its old name would damage the tenuous sense of identity of this old grange? The change from "Victoria University College" to V.U.W., a few years ago, was a good one, and did no damage. With the transformation of Vic. in the last few years, with big new buildings reluctantly popring up all over the place and new projects in the future, it will soon be quite remarkably different from itself 30 years ago. A sense of continuity with the past is too precious to throw away. It is something that can be used to unite the student body, especially as based around the solemnity of the capping ceremony. Why risk losing it, by discarding a name that is essential to the character of the place, to the link with Vic's beginnings? Senses of identity and continuity are things you realise the importance of when you don't have them. Then again, isn't this deletion disrespectful to British royalty? See how the South Africans are taking down the royal portraits and changing their packs of playing cards. The name is far more important to the students and staff of the university, who have to live with it, than to the public administrators. With the suggested change, for the sake of clerical convenience and the flattering of the egos of a few senseless businessmen, these people stand to gain nothing, and lose something rather valuable. They have (at least) a right to be consulted. At the best, the students and staff should be the actual makers of the decision, by referendum.

What Should We Do

We should have a motion at the Annual General Meeting and then protest at every level.

Not Conservatism

Our opposition to this change of name is not just lazy conservatism. We are dealing, not with a mere administrative fiction but with a living thing, an organic unity. Such must be handled with circumspection. Our feelings are that no major change should be made for a few years yet, if at all, to allow the effect of the present changes to settle down.

One grave problem around this place is the small degree of unity and esprit de corps in the student body. With the opening of the Union Building, the rose has a chance to bloom. So why change its name to lesser stinkwort ?