Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

SMAD. An Organ of Student Opinion. 1934. Volume 5. Number 2.

"Contumacious" And "Dangerous"

"Contumacious" And "Dangerous"

There is a conceit, especially common in newspaper circles, that New Zealand newspapers are of a very high standard. We have been told hundreds of times through the press of our good fortune in possessing such unbiased journals. Reporters have even boasted of this superiority to Bernard Shaw. Yet every student will leave this controversy over freedom of speech with his appreciation of New Zealand newspapers confined to the exquisite artistry of the heading and the super-fine quality of the paper. We have been taught just how biased a paper can be, despite a mock semblance of gravity and fairness. Had Bernard Shaw seen a complete file of the references to student freedom as they have appeared in our Wellington press, he would not even have praised their headings or their paper; he would merely have pointed out that most people leave a kindergarten aged between 6 and 8 years. He did describe institutions such as the press would have our University as "booby-traps," and places which should be " turned into mental hospitals."

Especially in Wellington we have long felt the. heavy restraint of public disapproval and suspicion. Many have railed at its injustice; but we can expect nothing else from a public that has no knowledge of the University except through the grossly partisan excerpts, sponsored perhaps by the envy of mediocrity, that appear in our press. Very rarely does a report of any student activity that is above the mark of insipidity appear without an attached paragraph or a sub-leader on "contumacious" and "dangorous" students. Like an old woman, the press must have the last say; it cannot leave the report of facte to speak for itself.

This lack of sympathy is all the more disappointing in that the press was one of the first institutions to struggle for that freedom of expression which we students are now claiming. The University and the newspapers have fought together for the sacred principle; they have gained it together. But now, when one is in danger again and seems last, the other, not content with merely turning its back, sides with the enemy to preserve its own safety. Now that his privilege is assured, he would see the other institution locked under control.

If freedom of the press were to be assailed, there would be one long wail of vituperation and argument. Now that freedom of student expression is assailed, there are soft pats on the back for the reactionary. Yet the same arguments the papers would propound in their favour we bring forward in ours; the same principles they would lay down, we adhere to.