Chaplain illogical, banal

Sir—It is to be hoped that the illogicalities and banalities of the leading article in the last but one issue of Salient can be attributed to bad reporting rather than to Geering-like theologizing on the part of the speaker. To refresh memories. the leading article mentioned was that which reported the sermon preached by the new N.C.C. Chaplain, the Rev. Mr. Jennings.

It is patently absurd to quote any minister of religion as saying that man has no spiritual needs, as absurd say. as quoting a dentist who says that man has no teeth. To be fair. several sentences later, the article says: "We can't be cut up into parts", which, one can only assume, means that spiritual needs cannot be confined to an isolated part of one's life. That may well be true, but there should be no need to make such a supposition.

However, worse was to come. Following straight after the above-quoted sentence comes this: "We are all parts together or we are nothing. The Church must be in all of university life or in nothing." Now this, to my mind, is an illogical leap from the point. no the supposition, that a man's spiritual concerns cannot be isolated from his whole personality, to a quite different point that within the university the Church should not be relegated to an insignificant place. Certainly, an analogy can be made, but not such a juxtaposition with the rather absurd implication that the Church (a term Mr. Jennings apparently did not define) is absolutely indispensable within the university.

The report then began to improve—wisdom is not just academic knowledge, but the functioning of a person to his full limits, in all his activities. Though may I be permitted to remind the Chaplain, if these were his words, that wisdom is not acquired by simply studying for a degree or by taking part in extra-curricular activities; not is it ever acquired. at least in my opinion by anyone lacking a sound and joyous Christian faith.

Cheating

Sir—Cheating is not irrelevant to academic ability (i.e. the abiltiy to gain the type of qualifications a University offers). If a scientist, for example cannot trust the results reported by others, he must repeal all their work if he wishes to make any use of it. Would research not then be intolerably difficult, slow and expensive.' Should a University, then, not test whether prospective scientists can remain honest when templed not to? And should it not lest prospective lawyers. accountants and teachers in the same way? Have you. Sir, any use for a dishonest reporter? Yours faithfully,

Specious argument

Sir—My first reaction to reading Owen Gager's searching analysis of the Cultural Revolution in China was one of amusement: a quite charming piece illustrating the art of specious argument.

But no; surely if the article was a spoof Salient would not have wasted a complete page on it!

If indeed the argument was meant to be a subtle hoax may I suggest that the following illustrates the same ploy somewhat more concisely.

Salt is Good

The late J. Christ the year before he died stated "Salt is Good".

Common salt is known among experts (see footnotes) to be none other than Sodium Chloride. Salt is found in salt water. Q.E.D

Returning however to the assumption that the article was genuine, and despite the pointlessness of semantic arguments I should like to make the following point as illustration. Gager's argument in no way bears any relevance to the bold opening statement, indeed it would seem to contradict that statement. Gager agrees that power has actually changed hands on the administrative level as a result of the mass action of a large section of the population. If this does not fall within the definition of 'revolution' then I should like the learned Gager to explain what does.

In fact it would appear that the only useful purpose of the article was to provide an opportunity to use the magical word "Stalinist", so evocative. like a veritable Pavlovian bell to the Trotskyite cerebral cortex.

[Mr. Gager does not think it necessary to reply—ed.]

Hack "Time" reporter

Sir—Derek Metser's review of "The Promise" reads like the work of a hack "Time" reporter. There is hardly a paragraph in his review which bears any relation to the excellent performance which I saw on the opening night.

Mr. Melser starts by stating that the play is set "somewhat arbitrarily in Leningrad". The characters in the play are firmly rooted in the Russian society which existed during and after World War II. What place symbolises the Russian resistance and despair better than Leningrad? Mr. Melser might as well criticise Shakespeare for setting "Romeo and Juliet' "somewhat arbitrarily" in Verona.

He then goes on to dismiss the plot as "too sentimental corny and hollow for even the most willing of the audience to suspend their disbelief. Whatever the merits of the play, and they are by no means as slight as Mr. Melser would have us believe, the audience's total involvement in the dramatic conflcit was born witness to at the end of the play by prolonged applause and repeated curtain calls.

Perhaps during the play Mr. Melser was so involved in constructing his facile comments that the audiences reaction was, in fact like the play, overlooked.

Mainly I would take issue with this critic's dismissal of the standard of acting in the production. He says "perhaps an experienced company could have brought some style, if not pointfulness to such a hapless script". (I'm afraid I can only shudder at this vulgar attempt to coin a word.)

Having seen the play performed in London I expected to be disaopointed, but the deep sincerity—and total absorption of these actors in their roles, created a high level of tension which would have done credit to an experienced and professional company. Though the play is undoubtedly sentimental and the character of Lika not fully enough developed, John Hopkins, Bill Evans and Margaret Brew transcended these faults and make the production one of the Drama Club's best.

Thank you

Sir—We wish lo express our thanks for the generous response from our professors, lecturers and students to the appeal for "Fund for Vietna" and especially to New Zealand, Malaysian, Thai. Laos friends who actively contributed by one way or another to make if successful. The donation, excluding those sent directly to the Treasurer, amounted to $216.70. This amount, together with the money raised in other centres, will be sent to New Zealand Red Cross Society be used for the benefit the civilians and refugees who have been suffering during the fighting. The final result of our campaign will be announced in all mass media.

The amount, whatever it may be. is still small compared with the damage and casualties but it undoubtedly will alleviate the misery of this long-suffering people. Please accept on behalf of the Vietnamese people, our gratitude.

Cloud

Sir—Please could Mr. cloud tell me if Freud was a(n)

1. Experimental psychoid

2. Psychoanalyst

3. Ethnologist

4. Marine biologt

Thanking him in anticipation. I remain, as always.

Mistake

Sir—The author of your column Left Side Out asks, in your issue of March 19, "Why does the magazine (ACT) not try to run at a profit, by using, say, advertising?" He should now take the plunge and read ACT. Let him look at any issue and he will find it using, say, advertising. He will also be cheered to know that if ACT has yet to make a profit, at least it has broken even.