Correspondence

The correspondence columns of your last issue oozed bilge. The main outlets were the many gaping holes in the letters from " One of Four " and " Not Equal To " (who certainly isn't).

(1) "One of Four" speaks of "unrestrained outbursts such as have been perpetrated by members of the society."

He asserts also that "attacks on religion and morality have caused the present ban."

Would your correspondent be good enough to specify the speakers and the debates upon which his statements are based, or else to withdraw?

(2) "One of Four" says it is "ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that licentious and indecent utterances can be justified by reference to the doctrine of "freedom of speech."

Would he tell us (in confidence) either who made the licentious and indecent utterances or who endeavoured to justify these imaginary bogies.

(3) "No subject," he says, "can be dealt with seriously at our debates." "One of Four" is here at variance with the opinions expressed by many of the judges at debates who have been good enough to tell us to the contrary.

"Not Equal To" argues that because freshers were not allowed to vote at the elections, they should not have been allowed to vote on the question of sending a letter of protest to the Prof. Board. What happened was not only constitutionally correct, But was, T submit, merely commonsense. For although most, freshers do not understand the problem of academic freedom as well as do many of the older students, they certainly know something of the subject. But the average fresher knows nothing of the qualities of candidates for office he has probably never met.

Moreover, the letter on which the meeting was asked to express its opinion was a self-contained criticism of quoted extracts from correspondence, and as such called for no previous knowledge of what happened last (or any previous) year.

Contrary to "Not Equal To's " statement, there was no "cheap and nasty ridicule of the dissentient voters." The views of "the Four" would have been given a better reception in the meeting (their proper outlet) than they received when they made their belaled and coy debut in your columns.

Your correspondent is in a most unfortunate position. If he was not present at the meeting he had no business to write his wretched letter; if he was present and was one of the "four," he is to be blamed for not having had enough moral courage to speak as his convictions dictated, but only enough to write a scurrilous and belated epistle from behind a hopelessly inadequate nom-de-plume.

You yourself, sir, if not as secretary of the Debating Society, then as a member of the audience at the annual meeting, must have known that parts of N.E.T.'s letter were false and libellous; and yet, as Editor of "Smad," you simply published this tissue of lies without giving those affected a chance of replying in the same issue.

I trust that you will (if time permits) give N.E.T. an opportunity of showing (if he can) that he is equal to the task of substantiating his cheap and nasty libels.

The following letter was received by the Exec:—

I have much pleasure in communicating to you the following resolution which was passed by the Professorial Board at its meeting on 3rd. instant:— "That the Board's congratulations be conveyed to the Students' Association on the success of this year's Extravaganza."

I would like to add to this my own personal congratulations. It appeared to me that this year's effort compared more favourably with any of the efforts in the past which I have seen. The humour was clean and the satire delightful.

First Dance Since Capping : Hockey Tournament Dance, Sat. Next.

See what it's like to be "King for a Pay":

Be a Pearly King for a night at the Coster Ball.

page 15

You may remember, sir, how you used to throw things in your youth—throw stones, throw a dice, throw up drink (not that it ever came down again), and even now you might throw a party or a stink bomb. But it seems the Haeremai Club have got this throwing complex. They must throw; yet they are too old to throw up drink and too young to throw a party, so what do they do? Why, throw toilet- paper, of course!

Now, toilet-paper is all right in its right place. That I would admit. But as the official missile on each and every occasion it leaves something to be desired. On the first occasion it borders on the humorous, on the second it is at least better than nothing, but as a habit it reveals a paucity of ideas that would delight a "Dominion" critic.

I write this in the hope that the student body will in the future keep its toilet paper to itself and not be so anxious to press it on others, who, after all, have their own.