.jpg)
Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol. 35. No. 13. 14 June 1972
Antithesis
Antithesis
Sir,
Dianne Alexander should have read my letter more carefully before replying, as most of her points have little to do with it. She ignores my main point — no small group (less than 2½% in this case) deserves special privileges which are paid for by the others.
| 1. | Student opinion may be on the side of minorities, but only those who are oppressed to maintain the privileged position of others, not on the side of those in the elite who oppress them, (or want to). |
| 2. | I did not make any sweeping generalizations (of which she gives no examples) and I did make it clear what I meant by "serious students". The "imperfections of modern medical science" are not the cause of pregnancy, anymore than the threat of a nuclear war is an excuse for not passing exams. |
| 3. | Whether or not students want anything to do with children is up to them - they can surely do so without forcing everyone to pay so that a large number of them are hanging around the university. |
| 4. | What is this "income that seems designed to support only one?" If neither of the parents are working then why indulge in such luxuries as children? |
The most objectionable part of this whole issue is that mothers (or fathers) who are able to go to university already contribute an elite (as do students themselves). Yet they want to be raised up further, with no thought for people in the community who are genuinely in need, for mothers in depressing suburbs who can't get out and certainly deserve a creche more than they do. Having got some privileges however, and a base to build on, they want more, while those who have nothing to start with continue to be taxed so that others can enjoy the double privilege of a university and a creche.
Terence Coogan.