Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 30, No. 4. 1967.

Editorials

page 6

Editorials

April 14, 1967

Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of VUWSA.

The great hoax

On Saturday Victoria University will again sponsor the biggest annual hoax in Wellington. Fifteen players will jog on to the rugby green at Athletic Park, all donned in Varsity colours, yet a mere two or three of them will be students.

If the victims of this hoax were not students themselves it would be more understandable. But alas, students and the university as a whole are the prime victims of this farce. In these terms the great hoax defies understanding.

A university by its very nature is a close-knit community. This is essential if it is to function effectively. The sense of unity within promotes an atmosphere that is conducive to academic pursuit and reassuring in its stress.

Such unity is threatened when university clubs allow unrestricted membership. A student can feel little loyalty towards such an amorphous body as the University Rugby Club. This is one of the main reasons why so many students play for non-university clubs.

Otago shows us the way. There, to be eligible, it is necessary to do six hours lectures a week. Special provisions apply for honours or masters students.

Victoria would do well to adopt similar requirements. Of course, the old arguments about administrative difficulties, shortage of coaches, lack of student support and lack of accomplished players will immediately be raised. But these become meaningless objections when the Otago experience is considered, or for that matter, the experience of almost any overseas university.

The most sterile of all objections is that the various Old Boys Clubs in town do not have a restricted membership and therefore neither should Varsity.

This argument presumes that:

  • • The system of Old Boy Clubs is acceptable;
  • • That we should take our standards from these clubs;
  • • That the function of Old Boy Clubs and a university club is similar.

None of these presumptions are justified.

At the very best the Old-BoyClub-system is a misnomer. In reality it is misguided. And surely it is obvious that we must develop our own aims and set our own standards to achieve those aims.

We require from a university club more than merely being a part of a town competition. We have a right to demand that it be an integral part of campus life. That is why it is failing if it functions as if it were an Old Boy Club.

An integrated campus life has been restricted for too long by a lack of reasonably stringent eligibility requirements for Varsity sports clubs—the Rugby Club is not the only misguided body, but it is the most blatant. For too long a Wellington public has been foiled by a large number of sportsmen masquerading as students.

The time has come to act. A good start would be the rugby club. A special general meeting this year could produce the required results.

Last year an Australian Universities rugby tour of New Zealand was cancelled because the Aussies refused (justifiably) to play the New Zealand Universities as well as individual university's non-student teams. This must never happen again.

The masqueraders must no longer be allowed to dance their hoax. The price is far too great.

G.P.C.

Shand is way out

The Hon. T. P. Shand is clearly guilty of woolly thinking over the question of "academic freedom."

He confuses academic freedom with democratic rights. Academic freedom is the freedom students and staff have to pursue the truth as they see fit.

It is not a special privilege as Mr. Shand suggests. By definition only academics have use for such a freedom.

Students exercise their democratic rights when they demonstrate against Government policies, wear jeans and grow beards.

What Mr. Shand was endeavouring to say has nothing to do With academic freedom.

In order to ensure public opinion doesn't turn against the universities he asks members of the various institutions to refrain from baiting the community with unorthodox ideas.

His approach is quite pragmatic. If the universities don't alienate the public he (as an advocate of greater expenditure on education) will find it easier to convince his colleagues in Cabinet of the necessity of increased attention in these areas.

On the surface students and staff appear to have a choice between "behaving themselves" and maintaining the flow of public monies into the universities or acting when inclined and suffering the consequences.

In reality subservience to public opinion is hardly likely to breed the necessary positive attitude to the universities, from the community.

This nation of self-made men is taking its time to discover that universities are an integral part of our economy.

Society is also slow to learn that its elders are not necessarily the best informed.

Youth, with its wider opportunities for consuming knowledge, is being told by Mr. Shand to beware of expressing an opinion which may offend the ignorant masses.

The implications of the suggestion are frightening. Is the public to be shielded from knowledge acquired in the universities?

The answer is no. If our society is to function as a democracy there must be free exchange of ideas.

Intelligent political decisions by the citizenry can only occur when the people are informed about the issues of the clay. Thus it is in the national interest that academics communicate their views to the public.

The trend should be encouraged, not reversed as Mr. Shand suggests.

Students and staff should continue to speak out and make known their views on issues as they arise.

B.G.S.