Two parties both the same!

I read with surprise that the Young Sosialist intend to back the Labour Party in the next elections even though in "Socialist Action" they find the Labour Government guilty of an "overall negative record" and "blatant infringements of democratic liberties". Their's is a political compromise of the most disappointing kind. What they are saying is — that in spite of considerable Young Socialist support in the last elections. Labour has ignored Socialist ideals and policies while in office ... but the Young Socialists will support them anyway.

The Young Socialists do have an alternative open to them, Particularly since the recent Values Conference, but before this also. Values stand out as a humanitarian party based firmly upon Socialist principles. They not only are a Socialist alternative but are also a viable Party which commands sufficient support to challenge Labour in at least one of its strongholds.

If the Young Socialists really want socialist action from their elected representatives then they would be better to vote Values than to throw away their support upon a party which every day is proving thatits promises of a more people-oriented government, and of a Socialist alternative, are not worth the paper that their Manifesto is printed upon.

— Values Voter for a Better New Zealand

Once again from Neville Wynn

You are finally prepared to admit the fact that there are two "predominant ways of looking at a thing", yet you do not have the integrity to publish both sides. I can only conclude that you and your cohorts do not deserve to occupy the important and influential position which you hold.

How can you be so undemocratic as to decide what your readers are able to read is beyond me. Why should I come to you to view this information, why the hell won't you print it, unless it is to preserve your unsteady stand.

You were most eager to use information from 'Time' magazine in one of your earlier replies, I wonder whether you are prepared to inform your readers that in the May 12 edition of Newsweek there appears an article by Mr Bagh on the two sides to the story.

It may interest you to know that some French journalists, people who have been far more active in supporting the communists than you, were shocked when they finally realized that the people of South Vietnam were not running because of American propaganda but simply because they enjoyed the "freedom" they were accustomed to under the CIA and American imperialism.

Furthermore, the author of this article comments that the Tanks, ready to invade Saigon, were not being driven by South Vietnamese. In fact he wasn't quite certain who was in command of them. I can give you a few guesses.

Finally, in this article we are told to beware of an internal imperialism in South Vietnam. From the recent announcement, that the 6th ranking member of the Politburo is North Vietnam, is in apparent command in South Vietnam, it would seem us though those fears are not unsound.

Your claim that "the other side of the story is propagated day and night by the New Zealand media" whilst you seem determined to print only your side, places you both in the same boat.

Neville Wynn.

Censorship in Salient

I find Mr. Robinson's plea in the last issue of Salient wailing for more participation rather odd. If his request is serious, then there is one simple solution to his problem. Instead of disgarding to the wastebin any submission that he thinks lacks sufficient merit to be published in Salient, that he print the contribution regardless of his own judgements on the matter. Such action must have ensued some four weeks ago when, on behalf of a non-Vic student, I submitted one of his comic strips to our 'avowed editor' (according to last week's issue!), B. Robinson. In every subsequent issue there has been no sign of the strip. I suggest that unless this rooster acts as liason between pen and printer only, instead of his present station as censor, there will quite naturally be a poor response in the pages of our 'fair' paper.

"Spaceship Earth' has Limited Resources

I must admit to being rather puzzled by John Ryall's attack on the much publicised Population Crises. I can understand someone being sociallistically biased, and determined to put over one's views, and support one's compatriots; but not his incredible assault on neo-Malthusian theories.

I will agree that one of the major problems, of the world to day it that of unequal distribution of resources; that socialism is probably a better answer than capitalism; that China has achieved miracles in the last few decades; and that Malthus was wrong in blaming the poor for their poverty; but I cannot hold to the incredible notion that the world can adequately provide for everyone indefinitely

Even a completely socialist world would consume resources, and as population increased, to would the rate of consumption. John Ryall would suggest that we can have our finite cake and also eat from it indefinitely. I would suggest est that he examines a basic biological textbook under the heading of Population Growth; or, if he refuses to believe anyone's written word, performs experiments himself with that socialistic Ascomycete, the common yeast.

Any population will increase as long as there is adequate food, light, water etc., but in a closed system (such as 'Spaceship Earth') the population will overtake food availability (no matter how evenly distributed) and the population is in danger of extinction. Add to this the build-up of toxins, fighting (wars), and other anti-social activities due to overcrowding, and no amount of anti-Western sentiment will save you.

I am only aware of two New Zealand political parties which are committed to a completely new society. One by revolution, shouting and confusion; and the other (Values), by a reasonably sane and ordered assault. I know which I'll choose.

Chancellor Replies to Bryan Mulligan

In reply to Bryan Mulligan (Salient no. 10) the University's budget is not confidential — not this year or any other year. Therefore there is no cause to comment on either of his suspicions (a) or (b).

As is usual, the document was prepared by the Vice-Chancellor, after he had consulted with those persons who advise him on such matters. He then submitted it to Council, through Council's Standing Committee, for approval. Again, as is usual, Council considered it in the open "public" part of it meeting on 24th March with the press representative present. It received little publicity from "Salient" or the daily press. One item publicized in the "Dominion" of 25 March, nevertheless, was the decision to establish the new chair in Maori.

Student representative are members of both Council and its Standing Committee. They had copies of the Budget as of right. Why did not Mr Mulligan start by asking them for a copy; and also asking whether it was confidential? I am sure that they could have reassured him.

It does not seem to me that Council or its staff would be justified in wasting the paper required to have enough copies available to meet an unknown level of demand. They would meanwhile presumably be stored by way of cluttering up yet another filing cabinet.

Finally, it is not remarkable, as might be inferred by your readers from Mr Mulligan's letter, that he possesses a 'xeroxed' copy. All copies are.

Orpheus Morpheus

Returning from down there I turn around and (naturally enough) lose her; it had to be this way. This is exile: nor are we out of it. immemor heu! I will not make that mistake again.

J.B. biparietal. J.B. sphenoidal. J.B. supraorbital. J.B.parasagittal. J.B. prefrontal. J.B. ethmoidal. J.B. foramen spinsoum. J.B. occipitomastoid. J.B. crista galli. J.B. vomer, J.B. pterygoid. J.B. superior nasal. J.B. hypophyseal. J.B. anterior clinoid. J.B. meningeal. J.B. non compos mentis. J.B. dead.

To take a standard metaphor further. this is aerial attack, cardiac. Cardiac terror, cardiac tear. Rent into a thousand peices and spread around. And is it not better that way. shared out indiscriminately. Of course. The second Hundred Days, you understand. From merely humanoid to fully human is not to very hard.

Letter From a Wellington TC Student/Part-time Vic. Student

My attention was brought recently to a notice in the Evening Pott that Extramural Enrolments at Massey University are increasing by 13% this year, bringing the total roll to 4,000 students, Rolls at all other universities show only slight increases, most, a decrease in roll. While other Tertiary institutions show a substantial increase in Rolls and Training College applications have increased enormously in the last few years.

This to me, it a very heartening sign. At last there is a definite swing away from tertiary level courses that because of large class sizes are impersonal, that do not involve students in the Course of the lecture, let along in the planning of it, and that do not attempt to justify philosophically their very existence.

In many tertiary institute courses this is of course self-evident, ie. if you enrol for a car maintenance course it has obvious application and implicit student involvement. It is those courses (and I shall speak from experience here) like History, English and English Language whose Departments do not attempt to communicate to students what they see as their relevance, nor bother to find out what students feel to be their relevance (if there is any relevance at all which is highly debatable) which at present exist in a vacuum. I suspect other courses other than the above-mentioned are in the same category.

Students taking these courses are expected to passively subserve to some higher authority (exactly which one is usually disguised) which dictates the course content and course method of approach without consulting the consumers, to any degree, without even attempting to justify their courses themselves. The fact that the Departments don't, enables them to avoid questioning neither amongst themselves nor for there to be any real communication between the students and staff which I feel they are quite honestly frightened of.

Throughout my course of university study I have consistently and to my mind quite naturally attempted to appraise whatever work that I have done or am doing in the light of my beliefs and relate them somehow to those of our society. To give my study some meaning to me as a person. Perhaps this is why I consistently get Bs and Cs and why I suspect other people get Ds and Es, because, to the detriment of the academic qualities of the academic qualities of the work my own personal views and reasoning are expressed (it is often difficult to incorporate these into essay topics). Of course, what is even more insidious is that I have no comeback to make a statement like that except on my own conviction. The fact that students are not effectively involved in the evaluation system at university effectively castrates them.

Now at last a movement has begun which I hope will signal change in all universities. Those people applying for Training College especially in Wellington, know that they will be valued more for themselves as people than as academic regurgitators, that their criticisms are more likely to be acted on and that courses, because of the nature of a Training College, just have to be relevant to a certain degree. Courses are continually under review and subject to change not least from students' pressure who for the most part are able to actively participate and evaluate.

I wonder whether the drift of people to more practical applied sciences means that rather than study purely academic courses that assume such total arrogance and control over the individual they would rather retire from the struggle of trying to be persons in their own right and they hide in applied sciences. What it sadder are all those people who have lost the ability to be themselves and to determine the conditions of their existence who have been sucked in.

The extreme sadness is witnessed by the walls and cars of Porirua Hospital, the sadness of those who have lost (temporarily I believe), the ability to struggle.

Useless lecturer.

If there is an award for the most waffling, boring and useless lecturer in this place, then I reckon it should be given right away to the fool who is at present wasting our time [unclear: in].

M.G.R.

Need For A Change In SRC?

Your article on SRC but week teemed to miss the main problem with SRC completely.

People don't go the SRC's because they are too boring.

With regards to the speakers at SRC we have the same twenty of so people involving nearly all the motions and these people are the main speakers to motions put forward.

I don't see any point in your division of a salient clique, New or Old Catholic Left cliques. I think it is far more important to look at what part members of the executive play in SRC. Not withstanding two members executive are running SRC most of the we find that of the 98 motions moved this year, 30 were moved by the chair involving bureaucratic things like confirmation of minutes and elections and 30 or nearly half of the 68 remaining motions were moved by members of the executive. Certain members executive like to play up the claim that SRC decided all association policy which is true, but at the same time a large proportion of this policy is mooted by them.

The nature of the topics raised at SRC is also an important factor in keeping 5,700 students persistently away from it. I understand that these people are not interested in whether the association supports or does not support the Rosa committee or uses brown toilet paper, etc. However, people are prepared to act when repressive motions not within their interests are put forward, such as the drinking horn motion of Colin Feslier.

The subsequent motion put forward by myself showed a number of interesting points about the operations of SRC. One is that the so called silent majority are prepared to let the politicians go on their ego trips as much as they like until they try to put restraints on student activities.

The outcome of this meeting has since been described as 'ludicrous', 'stupid', 'immature', etc. and I accept this criticism but I wonder if some of the other nutters moving motions at SRC ever think of what is thought of some of their incredibly stupid motions. I feel certain if people didn't have to sit through some of the boring shit that come up we would get more people at SRC.

Having looked at some of the problems, so what? who cares? Certainly not the verocious minority who presently run it. As far as I can ascertain nor do the apathetic majority.

Tony Ward's 'Executive Drivel'

I feel I must defend myself against Anthony Ward's 'Executive Drivel' in last week's Salient in which he describes my performance as poor. I am loathe to take up pen in such a trivial debate as much as I was loathe to see a good half page of Salient being wasted on such petty claptrap. However, I feel I owe it to members of this association to assure them that indeed I am not doing next to nothing for the Association.

I'm sorry that Anthony Ward feels that these exercises and more constitute doing next to nothing'. Anthony has a lot of potential as a writer for Salient but not as a John Henderson type of domestic journalist with only generalised back subbing contributions to make about otherwise sincerely active Exec. members.

The Barbarian Replies

In Salient April 22nd you published a letter from Martin Edmond which purported to be a criticism of my review of a New Argot editorial.

In this amazing little torrent of abuse I am accused of having a "not too firm grasp of quasi-Marxist principles", and "total ignorance" of contemporary aesthetics and architectural design, not to mention Mr Wollaston's paintings. Apparently I am also afflicted with "literal-minded stupidity" (whatever that is) and "sheer barbarism which wishes to destroy anything it can't understand."

Mr Edmonds' prose (if in my total ignorance of such things I can presume to comment) has the subtlety of a sledge-hammer and the accuracy of a Dominion report on Indo-China.

To recognise that I have a not-too-firm grasp of quasi-Marxist principles, Mr Edmond must have a firm-grasp. Why then did he not go on to reject some of the quasi-Marxist points which I was trying to make? It would have been far more useful than seeing how many virulent adjectives he could put in his letter.

Any quasi-Marxist recognises a distinction between the form and the content of an art work. The content of Wollaston's painting was lost on me because its form made it difficult to decipher. The content of his painting may be wonderful, expressing solidarity with oppressed people and crystallising their experience for them (which I doubt), but what is the use if the means of communication restrict understanding to the educated, or travelled intellectual with time to ponder (and the opportunity to sit in J.D.Todd's office and look at it)? lf Wollaston wanted to communicate whatever it was to the majority of New Zealanders (even if it wasn't the literal contours of Mapua) he should have chosen a form that made this possible. He didn't., Objectively, his painting was made for the educated elite that could understand it.

In spite of all the wonderful thoughts that ran through Mr Wollaston's head when he was putting brush to canvas, in spite of the fact that he was probably very happy with the depressing splodges and their deep inner meaning and with his freedom to express whatever it is that he is expressing. objectively, all that he communicates to simple people like myself is that we are too stupid to understand. We are inferior and deserve all that this inferiority gives us in life.

Mr Edmond demonstrates appropriately enough the very arrogance of one who understands when he calls all my comments on aesthetics, architecture and Wollaston totally ignorant. From the benefit of his home in Karori he can see that I just don't, understand the aesthetics of barbed wire fences he has never seen. Obviously, the people I work with just don't understand M.T. Wollaston's paintings, and should never express an opinion on such things.

If it is sheer barbarity to destroy such fences, and paintings that objectively tell people that they are stupid and can't hope for anything more than what they have because they are stupid, then roll on barbarity. To my mind Mr Edmonds is the barbarian, as he supports art born of the philosophy of doing your own thing in your own time. Such art creates andrecreates the ideology of the technocratic elite and the expert — and ideology that is one part of the oppression of the majority of New Zealanders which stop stops them from developing their potential.

A Racist Letter

Values against status quo?

John Ryall, in his report on the Population Debate, writes that the Values Party "pretends" to be against the status quo. Quite frankly, the Values Party does [unclear: not] have time to "pretend" anything. Nor do we have the money to present the public with a double-face, if that was our intention. The social and economic policies that Values proposes are against the status quo as any quick reading of our ideas will show.

Perhaps the differences between Values and any other political groups who wish to [unclear: built] a new society, is that we try to present our ideas in a way New Zealanders can understand and find relevant. We do not frighten them with imported jargon. We try to avoid the all-too-easy labelling and definitions like "Neo-Malthusian", "Marxist" or "Trendy liberals" whenever possible, until we find one that is accurate.

Beryl Pears.