Language requirement defended!

Sir—I disagree entirely with the sentiment of our editorial concering the language requirement. Surely no one but a fool believes that "to be able to read a language other than.your own is essential to a "respectably educated" person," And surely the idea of a "rounded education' is meanings anyway when university studies are undertaken in five faculties and many selfconsciously autonomous departments within faculties.

In my experience, people who bitch about the language requirement haven't got it and .are having difficulty getting it. I haven't got it and am finding it difficult to get. But I don't think that the difficulty of the thing, unless it presents a super-human task (it doesn't), is a sufficient argument against retention of the requirement. Most people can it if they do some work.

I would not agree that the requirement, once satisfied, represents "a sketchy knowledge of the vocabulary of an obscure language." In the first place, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latin, Maori and Russian are not "obscure languages"-at least not in a relative sense - and surely it is up to the student whether his knowledge is "sketchy" and confined to the vocabulary? Such a student may pass the examination, but I doubt it. Mr. Peter Blizzard tells me that students doing doctoral work in American universities are almost invariably required to produce evidence of some proficiency in a second language.

I think the language requirement is invaluable in that it offers the student a unique reorientation with the fundamental material with which he deals: his own langauge. And while the language departments may defend the requirement on grounds that its abolition threatens their viability. oppose it because it would be a step in the wrong direction. We need to have more langaugcs taught here, as part of a progression to a wider degree, in which the idea of a 'rounded education" might really take on some meaning.

In Canada, Arts and Science students sit compusory courses in each other's faculties. The courses are elementary, and specifically designed to give a broad grounding in some central Subjects of the other faculty. In Britain students sit a large number of papers in the first year of their Arts degree and then specialise. These degree designs manage to achieve the essential characteristic of a good degree-specialisation within the context of a general education. The opposing forces of generalisation and specialisation are hard to reconcile. We haven't done it here. But you're going in the wrong direction, Mr Logan.

What goes up must come . . .

Sir-The remarks of Mr. G. J. Nesbitt in a recent Salient indicate only one major line of reasoning. He feels that a minority of Salient's staff in monopolising news-space with what he considers to be "dull and uninspiring" political comment. This he sees as wrong and would no doubt rather have it replaced with an open system whereby everybody has a say and all articles were printed without any constraint or control whatsoever. This is something which is impracticable and smacks of anarchy. Democracy, thank God, is able to provide its own controls.

Salient can pride itself on being a mature weekly newspaper comparing favourably with any other in N.Z. Like all democratic organisations Salient operates on a competative basis. It is simply because the reports of Owen Gager, James Mitchell, etc. have been of such importance and of such a high standard that they have been consistently published. I am sure that the editor of Salient would see to it that trash was not published. G. J. Nesbitt labels consistent reporting as "egotistical elevation". Does this show contempt for the present competitive ssytem? Does he shun democracy and its constraints? If Mr Nesbitt (obviously a frustrated fresher) were capable of writing such illuminating articles he would show no hesitation, I am quite positive, in having his reports published every week.

There is nothing wrong with Salient. I whole-heartedly endorse Mr Neil Wright's praise of editor Bill Logan at a recent Forum. A quick glance at Canta and Critic reveals Salient's reporting superiority. Congratula. tions Salient for enlightened, accurate and imaginative reportAs the father of 17 children once said,"It's simply a matter of keeping it up".

National's anthem

Sir-I have much pleasure in enclosing a copy of The National Anthem as revised by C. Osbourne Bartholowem-Gore.

God Save our Pompous Keith, Love Live our Heart Keith, God Save our Keith. Send Him a Flower, To Give Him Power, Before Him We Cower, God Save Our Keith.

I would heartily recommend that this Anthem be sung at the next gathering outside the Palace with the Gusto that only Students can produce on such matters.

Loquaciously

Sir-Recent issues of Salient contain a justifiable criticism of the layout and general standard of reporting exhibited in Salient. But criticism can surely go further than this.

Over the last few months readers have been subjected to a personal testament of Neil Wright's political affiliations, the doubtful Interest of which was confirmed by no more than a cursory glance, the hysterical outpourings of Messrs Hirschfield, Rowlands, and (to a lesser degree) Haas, the admittedly loquacious but eminently predictable thoughts (and preconceptions) of James Mitchell. I make no claim that these voices should not have been heard, but rather that the space allocated them was quite disproportionate to their interest and value.

Drama reviews, with the exception of a recent effort by a senior member of the Education Department (in itself a commentary on the paucity of studenl reviewers) have been incoherent and inarticulate, an insult to the average reader's intelligence. The film reviews of M J. Heath, informed as they unquestionably are, provide little satisfaction for the general reader. They assume a knowledge of other films which very few actually have. The frequency of heavy black type, seven titles other than the film being reviewed in the last issue, attests to this fact.

Errors in printing and proofreading are more numerous than I can remember having seen in recent years, while the editorial level has reached a probable all-time low. Compensation for this is not provided by the verbal paranoia exhibited by the editor in his replies to recent correspondence.

In short it would appear that Salient has sacrificed quality for quantity. Yet I feel that a footnote to my criticisms is called for. The photographic section is often excellent. However I suppose that the management of Salient must put in some serious thought before they decide it worth their while merely to bring out a weekly double page pull-out.

. . . incorrect

Sir-It has been suggested that my rather intemperate letter of resignation printed in your last issue contains an attack on a particular African student.

This is incorrect.

My attacks are reserved, wholly, solely, and absolutely for Bill Logan, in this context Bill will back this up, I think!

Meanwhile, my regrets for any hurt feelings-other than Bill's

As Alister Taylor would say,

Art for Arts

Sir-Wellington Teachers' College have this year formed a Students' Association Arts Council to preserve and encourage the tradition of art within the College. The Council consists of seven student members, the staff of our Art Department, and has the Principal as its Patron. It will be a continuing body being elected each year.

The Council's principal aim is that of "promoting student activities in the arts and enraging a greater awareness of these within the College and the community". Its scope covers not only the visual arts but also literary, musical and dramatic; in other words, all forms of art that we find in the College. Already this year we have held an auction of works or art opened an art-and-craft shop at College every fortnight, produced a calendar for 1969 of drawings by Alan Howie, and published a collection of poetry by children from a Wellington school. We hope to encourage endeavour as well as ability in these fields by giving letters of recognition to student each year: it is not only talent but also enthusiasm in art which we seek to encourage.

One of our aims is to establish a Collection of art for our new college at Karori. To help towards purcahsing this we are holding an exhibition this week at the Dunhill Room, N.Z. Display Centre from Monday 29 July to Friday 2 August. We would like any students from V.U.W. who are able, to come along to the exhibition and to the auction of all the works of art on Friday 2 August at 7 p.m. The works are by students, staff and well known New Zealand artists.

We hope that our efforts to encourage awareness among students and in the community [unclear: -] will be sucessful.

Plunket Soc.

Sir-Your reporter is to be commended for having attended the Plunket Medal contest this year, even though the significance of that event appears to have eluded him.

It is unfortunate though, that he did not see fit to quote my remarks with regard to the context within which they were uttered. At no stage did I state that oratory was a dying art. I acknowledged that some people hold that view, but I then contended that the contestants would demonstrate that evening that "far from dying, oratory was a vibrant living art which would continue so long as man sought to persuade his fellowmen by the spoken word."

Your reporter accuses me of promulgating "the Great Plunket Medal Myth' (whatever that may mean) and adduces my comparison of the contest with any other contest in the world in support of his accusation. I can only assume that he means that he knows of another oratory contest in comparison with which the quality of the Plunket Medal contest becomes mythical. It is strange that he did. not refer to such a contest.

My remarks were further misrepresented by your reporter when he implied that in speaking of past contests I referred only to the winners. That is not so. I stated that: "in all walks of life you will find, if not a Plunket Medal winner, then a Plunket Medal contestant; for such is the standing which the contest enjoys, that there is almost as much prestige attached to having competed in it as there is to having won it" Your reporter appears to have misinterpreted my references to the standing of the contest and the prestige attached to competing in it as applying only to its winners; whereas it is quite clear (and was equally clear when I originally made the remarks) that I was referring to all those who had ever competed for the Medal. Your reporter would no doubt dispute the standing and prestige of the contest. He is entitled to take that view, but in so doing he is flying in the face of the considerable student and public opinion which holds the contest in high esteem, not to mention the considered and sometimes expert views of all those who have ever been concerned with public speaking contests in this city.

In conclusion, it seems to me that your reporter considered that every speaker at this year s contest was an orator par excellence. It will be recalled that one of the criteria I named whereby it might be determined whether oratory had been heard was whether the audience felt antagonistic towards a speaker. From the tenor of his account it would seem that your reporter was deeply moved. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the obvious effect that the contest has had on him, together with his evident disgust at the exposition of "liberal values" will impel him to defend his particular cause (whatever it might be) in next year's contest. Perhaps then he could make up, as a speaker, for his deficiencies as a reporter.