Editor Wrong?

Sir,—I objected to the awarding of an honorary degree to the Prime Minister, and it is possible, with some effort, to dredge my reason for so doing from your editorial on the subject—I believe the degree debases the awarding of such an academic honour.

However most of the remainder of the editorial is to be regretted for its uncharacteristically low level of commentary.

You wrote: "For students have not forgotten—even though it seems that the university has—that just one year ago at the graduation ceremony the Chancellor of this university bitterly attacked the Government's policy towards universities."

Surely it is painfully obvious, Mr. Rennie, that the Council of this university has not forgotten the attack. In fact it is the very memory of this attack, followed as it was by certain Government concessions to education in the 1965 Budget, that has prompted the awarding of the degree.

It is an attempt to smooth embittered feelings engendered at this university last year.

Would it not be more responsible to face this fact, and attempt to build objective editorial comment from it, rather than sink into the morass of emotionally-loaded remarks, such as "cheap political gimmick," "singularly short-witted council," and "political act that is both dangerous and foolhardy," which are reminiscent of Truth.

The matter is a good deal simpler than this. To see direct, political intentions behind this award is to create a straw man. However undesirable a precedent it may set its aim was merely to restore some semblance of civil relaations between the Government and this university.

Look at the situation realistically, Mr. Rennie Adequate objections to the degree can be made on grounds of academic debasement. And remember a previous editorial remark you made this year:

"This paper has a commitment to the ethics of journalism, which will not be abandoned for—artificial controversies."

Amen!