Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Spike or Victoria University College Review 1933

Our Radicals

page 15

Our Radicals

It is quite evident from the recent newspaper controversy on "Twisted Teaching" that many people in Wellington are much concerned about the health of the Undergraduate. They have come to feel that the nourishment of the young at the University is a blot on the records of public hygiene. The matter must be looked into at once and the diet properly regulated. Mr. McLaren recommends licking the dust, the Post is motherly, but firm—"Milk and water," she says, is the correct thing for the young; anything stronger would cause indigestion. But the students want wine and do not like the Plunket experts. The Welfare League complain that the wine provided by the College is poisoned. "Nonsense," says Professor Gould. "Bad wine" declares Canon James. "More wine," shout the students. "Milk and water is best," says the Post soothingly.

I have indicated the main lines of the argument, but the correspondence raised several questions. It is not of supreme importance for most of us to know whether or not the Welfare League have libelled the Professorial Board. The important issue is the attitude of the public to the students and to radical ways of thought.

The Welfare League, Canon James and Mr. McLaren think that the influence of the College is not fot the good of the community. It is well for the students to consider the opinion of these people dispassionately and try to understand their point of view. Canon James speaks of the "anarchic propogandist" at V.U.C If the College were in a fact a hot-bed of anarchy its influence on the community would be harmful. No State can be expected to tolerate the activities of people bent on destruction for its own sake. I think it is unlikely that there is an avowed anarchist at V.U.C. or in any other community of healthy, sufficiently-fed people. Nevertheless there are always some students possessed by a strong and unreasonable taste for aggressive enterprises. They like to shock their elders, they see no sense in standards of morality, they hate the restriction of their personal liberty. At school everything depended on conforming to codes of morality, and these codes now seem futile and inadequate. The world, they find, is a colossal hoax—established religion largely hyprocisy and fear, official justice a convenience for those already comfortable. They are filled with righteous wrath, they will tear down everything that comes between them and the naked truth. They read Mencken and look around triumphantly on the corpses of old prejudices, old fears, old venerations. They feel on the threshold of enlightenment and freedom. Their battle against prejudice and injustice is a holy war. The day of deliverance is at hand. Canon James and Judge Ostler and all upholders of corrupt institutions will be consumed with unquenchable fire!

Through some such state of mind as this do many of us pass. In some such mood many of the extremely radical articles of which we have heard so much, are written. "Of course, every intelligent person is a communist" is the sort of thing that may be said.

"Ex Cathedra" says: "It is conforming to a settled convention that students shall express (if not hold) radical opinion." There is some truth in this statement. There are poseurs at the University as everywhere else. What is more there are those "who caricature every cause they serve however sincerely." But I think "Ex Cathedra" is mistaken and unjust in confidently dismissing all radical student opinion as "childish," "bigoted" and "irrational."

Understanding must come before tolerance. The student in the aggressively radical state of his development is intolerant. He does not understand the causes of the world's hypocrisy—he hates it and the institutions that harbour it. He sees no value in obedience—he rebels. But to call him an anarchist is to ignore the love of justice which is a real part of his philosophy. Anger and bitterness do not make men happy or useful. A passion for justice does not make men happy, but makes them enormously useful.

Rigorous suppression by authority is not a cure for intolerance. On the contrary, it increases the anger and bitterness. The people who are most aggressively radical in youth are often those who have been most disciplined in childhood.

The speediest cure for intolerance is experience. It is easy, especially in the comparative shelter of the University, to have intellectually satisfying political and ethical ideas, but another matter to practice them. No-one finds it easy to forego the privileges of the class and nation to which he belongs, but a communist's sympathies must be with the working classes of all nations. Those page 16 who put their ideas to the test of experience will see what an enormous weight of prejudice, indolence, vanity and greed not only in the world but in themselves—hinders their progress. They find no easy triumphs.

So there is a great falling off in the number of revolutionaries with increase in age. Their first enthusiasm is over; they find after all that society is fairly good, fairly comfortable and very interesting; they no longer have a grievance; they have become more sober, more tolerant, and generally more apathetic. Many of them become strict observers of codes of morality and conventions differing only slightly from those to which their parents adhered.

There has been a good deal of argument and dispute about communist students, but almost everyone is agreed that they are moral offenders! Some look upon them as a public danger, others as irresponsible children. It is assumed that a man's first duty is to his King and country. Dr. Beaglehole, however, points out that it is impossible to have fixed standards of morality in the University. Mr. John Howell goes straight to the point and asks "What is truth?" Surely every generation—every individual—must seek an answer for himself and cannot go content with an old answer. Dare a man deny himself doubt? Does the Welfare League desire students to pay lip service to institutions they do not respect?

The editor of the Post speaks of the danger of the young mind being acted upon by interested propogandists from Russia. Can he assure us that his Riga correspondent is impartial and accurate? I would like to ask those who complain of the decay of morals and religion in the rising generation, whether on these grounds they can justify our present social order or entirely condemn the Russian system. There is no justification in the slayings of Christ for our system of private ownership, nor for our attitude to manual labour, nor for our class system. If our elders tell us that radical ideas are not be-coming to "people of good family," they have not admonished us on moral or religious grounds.

This controversy though it has not disturbed our lives vary greatly is significant because it is a ripple that has reached us from the storm that rages in Europe. If we are to avoid the storm we must be tolerant. By tolerance I do not mean indifference or sacrifice of principle for the sake of peace. What is so urgently needed here is a recognition of three things: first, that to maintain our present social system is not enough: it must be reformed and renewed; secondly, that a University which is too absorbed in its studies to discuss the principles and practice of government is no University; and finally, that it would be a grave disaster if students whose views conflict with accepted beliefs should be silenced by the coercion of either University or public authority.

—H.