.jpg)
Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 33 No. 4. 7 April 1970
Sitting in the Gutter, Gazing at the Stars
Sitting in the Gutter, Gazing at the Stars
In a letter published in this issue, Mr Logan defends his action in the exclusion affair.
It should be reiterated that it is Salient's view that Mr Logan misled students in this matter. It should also be stressed that we have at no time suggested that Mr Logan acted otherwise than in the best interests of students—as he understood those interests. It is simply our view that he misconstrued the function of the Committee of the Council of which he was a member and that the methods by which he sought redress for the imagined injustices were entirely inappropriate. Some students may share my dismay that, at this stage, Mr Logan still, apparently, has the impression that the Council sub-Committee of which he was a member had the power to hear appeals. (Mr Logan writes in his letter or letters having been sent out "before the Committee of Council had finally determined the appeals.")
| (i) | began with the statement "Any student who fails to pass two units in two years is automatically excluded from the University unless he appeals successfully to the University Council"—this being completely untrue, it having been resolved by the Council on 27 April 1964 "That no provision for appeals to the Council be made in the regulations for the exclusion of unsatisfactory students" and this principle having been in no way departed from in the further review of exclusion procedures which took place later in 1964; |
| (ii) | failed to mention at any point that the Deans had allowed 183 appeals by students against exclusion after failing to meet the requirement of two units in two years; |
| (iii) | suggested that "the hearing of appeals was not conducted carefully enough this year" when no evidence at all to this effect existed (the suggestion being clearly rebutted when the Council affirmed its confidence in the work of the Academic Committee); |
| (iv) | complained that "in effect, decisions were made not by the Council or a Committee of Council on which there is student representation, but by the Academic Committee on which students are unrepresented" when the Joint Committee of the Council, Professorial Board and Students' Association agreed only last year that there is "no need for direct representation on the Academic Committee". |
Salient has been accused of bias and misrepresentation of the exclusion issue—though none of the facts of our news story was disputed. Our object in reporting the events of the Special Council Meeting and in outlining the background to the exclusion procedures, was solely to present a full, fair and accurate account of this matter.
If anything, in our zeal to be fair to Mr Logan, we understated the case against him in our editorial. A large proportion of Salient's front-page news story was taken up with the quotation of remarks made by Mr Logan at the Special Council Meeting and comments abstracted from Mr Logan's Memorandum. He was given an opportunity to remark on the affair and his remarks were published in full. In seeking those who we felt should also provide comment we had no regard to what their views might be. We considered that students would be interested in what the Vice-Chancellor, the third person to sign the requisition for the special meeting of the Council (the Deputy Vice-Chancellor), and the immediate past-President and the President had to say about the issue. The fact that what three of these people had to say amounted to an indictment of Mr Logan's action may be less a reflection of bias in Salient than of the fact that Mr Logan's action was precipitate and foolish.
At the SRC meeting on 19 March, I was not allowed to get away with merely a no confidence motion and accusations of bias and incompetence, however. Those members of the SRC who, having failed in their motion of no confidence, moved on to direct the Publications Board to publish a weekly Salient (an action which would result in a drastic fall in technical and editorial standards at this stage in our operation of the new typesetting system), should be aware of the consequences of their action: if an Editor is to be subjected to attacks such as this each time he takes an unpopular stand, the editorial freedom of Salient will be destroyed. I can take Mr Logan's reference to me as "technically and editorially incompetent". I do not resent the fact that many people at the SRC seemed to turn on Salient in their chagrin at being told how they had made fools of themselves. Salient will not, however, be dissuaded from printing the truth: Mr Logan misled students over the exclusion affair.