Dr Taylor's article

I should like to thank you for publishing extracts from Professor Taylor's report to University Council on student counselling (Salient, 18 Feb. 1970). Students must have found it particularly interesting to be able to read the opinions of someone who (at least, until recently) was an appointed adviser to them.

As a member of staff, I found particularly interesting Professor Taylor's recommendation that (presumably, when engaging staff), "more attention must be given to the personal qualities of stability, enthusiasm, loyalty, and responsibility of academics as well as to the qualities of their degrees". I presume that this is an amplification of Professor Taylor's earlier homage to academic freedom.

Illicit Union Licit?

In Salient 2 Mr Brooke-White offered us a worm's eye photograph of the Common Room chairs which would only be seen by worms or drunks. For most, the views from the Common Room are magnificent, and far surpass those of Auckland, Massey or Ilam.

The awkward site, a deep gully, originally allotted to the Student Union by the University, largely dictated the original plan, and the additions naturally conform with this structure.

The balcony will almost certainly be a popular place in fine weather, and eight-inch stays for the offending windows have long been ordered, that Mr Brooke-White need have no fear for his ill-used eyes.

In the matter of design every architect has his own viewpoint, but the contrasts in form and colour both inside and outside make the new SUB interesting, attractive and liveable; and there has been nothing but favourable comment amongst those whose opinions I have sought.

Over a period of 22 years as a Construction Foreman on many and varying types of contracts. Engineering, Commercial and otherwise. I have had the privilege of reading many divergent opinions of the merits and non-merits of the various structures.

I can truthfully state now, that I have never read a more biased one-eyed opinion from a critic in all my life. He was purely destructive, and obviously well primed before he commenced his illicit inspection.

His comments on the leaning columns on the walkway were ample evidence, to me at least, that he did not know what he was talking about, and his 1800 words were the scribbling of a gormless clot suffering from an overdose of Parliamentary privilege.

Correspondent complains

I am not aware of the means by which you obtained copies of my private correspondence. The fact that you read my letters is reprehensible enough. To print them is inexcusable. Any further exposure of my private life will lead to prompt action.

Film Criticism

Some time ago I chanced to find a yellowed and crusty copy of Salient lying in the gutter. Flicking away the road dust and wood lice I discovered your farcical comment on The Wild Bunch. How could you conceivably feel that this magnificent movie was "utter rubbish"? I can only conclude that you wrote the criticism as a monstrous practical joke calculated to attract 50,000 letters of protest like this—perhaps to sell to a Boy Scout paper drive.

The film was glorious! What's wrong with you, man? Suffer from a morbid fear of death or something? Take that final scene, for instance. How superb! Blood didn't merely stain a guy's vest when he was hit by a high-velocity slug—it flew through the air like crimson porridge. The screen was wondrously ensanguined by a huntingly beautiful liquid amalgam of lymph, flesh and brains, bursting from Mexican bodies like mud from a Rotorua pool. The screams of the dying were as a fairy melody between the stereophonic speakers, and the smell of rotting flesh hung on the air like the breath of a summer breeze.

I grant you that the story was not all that great, but why worry about trivia in the face of such illustriously portrayed violence? Wait until you see Soldier Blue, a film that makes the slaughter in The Wild Bunch seem as tame as a bathtub squabble between two rubber ducks. Until then, may a murrain fall and blast your criticism.

Diploma in Science

The First SRC Meeting

I was one of those students who attended the first meeting of the SRC last week. No wonder there is an apathetic attitude towards student politics. After listening for half an hour I got so fed up I left, with many others.

Why? When it takes three hours to discuss two motions—relatively straightforward motions at that—one tends to get pissed off. Alright, there is a Constitution to follow but does it have to be followed so rigidly that the whole meeting gets bogged down in protocol so that nothing gets done. Motions are discussed, amended, counter-motions are introduced, so that before long the original motion is unrecognisable

And still the meeting gets smaller.

Perhaps it was the presence of the TV cameras that caused this tedious ritual. Well if this was the case some people certainly made every effort to be seen on camera.

I call it the irony of democracy. The SRC is supposed to be a democratic institution but democratic principles are carried to such a degree that it is extremely hard to see the democratic elements involved, especially as two or three vocal goons can almost ruin the meeting by their interjections and points of order. If this state of affairs' is allowed to continue the SRC meetings will certainly be struggling to keep a quorum. I suggest to Miss Bryson and co. that they take a long hard look at the SRC and try to eradicate the weaknesses that are so prevalent.

One Per Cent Aid

Mr James Mitchell (I presume his name is James) seems to be demanding, in his comments on One Per Cent Aid, that we should place logic and reason upon impulses that are fundamentally human and Good. There is very little impulsive goodness in the world today.

It makes people feel good to give, and all that feels tood can't be that bad.

If Mr Mitchell wants to find logical reasons for loving or giving, or wanting to love or to give, we who don't need them would rather he-keep his inquiries to himself.

I cannot say of Mr Mitchell that he has been the most successful pressure group on campus in 1969, and in fact I considered treating his article with the contempt which it deserves. However, many people who had worked damn hard for 1% A.I.D, felt affronted by his twaddle so I thought I would give him the satisfaction of a rejoinder.

Second, there is nothing reprehensible in my original statement and I don't want to withdraw anything I said last year. New Zealand has not taken its international responsibilities seriously and the fact that we have fought in every bloody conflict since the Boer War only proves this point.

Third, I still don't want to be part of a W.A.S.P. right backlash, whether it be in relation to race or development. We know Mitchell doesn't mind, he is the backlash.

First, thanks for acknowledging that 1% A.I.D, was the most successful student pressure group in 1969. (We always had a sneaking suspicion that we were but having Mitchell say so is some indication of the extent to which we managed to penetrate the total political spectrum from far right to far left). Before we know where we are the Aid Rhodesia Society will be clamouring for New Zealand assistance to Southern Africa.

Mitchell develops these arguments with fairly addle-headed logic and finishes off with a lot of nonsense about naked Emperors. It would seem that Mitchell should try and concentrate on what 1% A.I.D. really said and did rather than what he imagined it to do and say. It is sort of permissible for farmers to exaggerate but sometimes the bull's wool isn't thick enough to cover our eyes.

Student accommodation

I was thrilled to see the topic of your lead article Pull Finger on Accommodation in the last issue of Salient.

The question I wish to ask is "Are Victoria students going to ever get off their chuffs and actually do something about the accommodation problem?" For years, in fact for generations, there has been talk and complaint but damn all action.