Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2015, by the Victoria University of Wellington Library
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line, except in the case of those words that break over a page.
Some keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Collection scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
In order to make new content available faster this work has been uploaded but does not have comprehensive name authority mark up for sub-works and corresponding authors. We will endeavour to add this mark up as soon as possible.
Jubilee Tournament was a success as a piece of organisation if not from the trophy point of view. Nevertheless Vic had its unexpected triumphs and a couple of unexpected defeats. This Tournament was not a rout—as it sometimes has been—and none of the functions were a shambles which they sometimes have been. Echoes of any disputes have not reached Salient and we can safely congratulate the organisers who are now the tiredest men and women in Wellington.
The weather did not promise well and the rowing suffered from the wind but apart from the chill at the swimming Wellington did our visitors well in preserving the drought. The only storms raged round the Tournament committee frantically searching for billets (finally allocated at 2 o'clock in the morning), searching for the trophies (with rumours of insurance claims pending), wearing Graham Patchett thin with the essential trivia in addition to the major tasks of Ways and Means.
Owing to the fact that the local Press covered the events very fully and gave us publicity Salient has no need to publish long lists of results. This coverage was certainly better than it has been for some years, particularly in the reporting of preliminary arrangements and for that Victoria can be thankful.
It is worth noting that athletics were our weakest spot this year and tennis our strongest. Even our famed shooting team found that their expectation of higher standards was more than justified.
The team which we entered in the women's basketball had done some intensive training to try and redeem our reputation in this sport. Their defeats emphasised the high standards achieved at the other colleges.
It is about time that the question of basketball at Easter Tournament was investigated. This is a winter sport. It is the only winter sport-apart from Drinking Horn—which is contested at Easter. This is an anomalous position and although it may be of advantage to Victoria not to allow other colleges to have a longer training time (although we doubt it) basketball should properly not be part of this Tournament.
Why a special word about swimming? Well mainly because of the ducks. The swimming was well organised and very entertaining in spite of the chill of the evening. Several people remember the constant repetition of the introduction of ducks and ask why. Surely something else could be tried.
This year the dance after Tournament appears to have had no aftermath even if at one stage the South American way seemed to be leading up to an interesting riot.
The writing was on the wall for our athletic chances when the inter-faculty sports featured so much lack of enthusiasm and interest. The newspaper report of the one entrant race (Mr. T. Beaglehole—no less!) even caused comments in the city.
The news that Ikar Lissienko was not available did nothing to brighten the scene. The report that the athleics controller handed to Salient minced no words and obviously hinted that training was necessary. The Athletics Club have the excuse that it is difficult to train invisible men and women. Are the clubs doing enough to encourage new students to take an interest in college clubs?
If you read newspapers you will have read their excellent coverage of tennis, rowing and Drinking Horn. This last was given the attention it deserved. Reports did fail to make it clear that speed was the essence and not quantity which caused fears that "Mother of Five" would be writing to the Press any moment.
Bal Reddy starred as the tennis hero, well deserved after his performance and we had the unusual spectacle of Victoria cornering the final.
Least well reported was the shooting probably because Trentham is a long way out of town during Easter week-end when so many other events are being reported. Perhaps the team may care to let Salient have a fuller story including the mistaken target tragedy. That is all that remains for the full record.
All the competitors deserve congratulations and the organisers deserve some sort of special award which they are certain not to get. Do the executive feast them after it is all over?
Since the Wooden Spoon will be resting in the trophy there is no need for us to publish a photograph of it. Suffice to say that it has been called a trophy of "unusual quality and design." This may explain Victoria's affection for it.
It was made for our association (yes we started it and apparently a boomerang would have been more suitable) by Mr F. W. Brodrick of Lower Hutt and has the approval of Mr Oliver of the Dominion Museum.
The custom of presenting wooden spoons appears to have arisen in
When the trophy was first presented it was placed on show for a week in James Smiths' window. For almost ever afterwards it appears to have come to display in our trophy case.
"Where"—we can hear someone saying—"is the trophy case?" On the left wall near the main stairs. Your attention and interest is invited.
That headline reprinted above topped Salient's front page for the first issue for
This scheme was the equivalent of Dr. Beaglehole's round table conference which he suggested at the recent debate to be a letter way of approaching the problem of staff-student relationships than that debate.
It is not unfair to say that neither side of the debate understood the other's case but the most regrettable features were the feelings of bitterness which seemed to be present and the misunderstanding of the student case.
The students suggested five things:
The most important fact is that for years nothing has happened as nothing happened to those recommendations for Faculty Committees. The fault is probably mutual but that does not excuse us from the duty of discussing the problem and attempting to put solutions into action.
The discussion should be carried on in the manner examplified by the letter from Professor Hughes which is printed in this issue. Honest attempts to clarify the terms and see the problems by both the staff and the students must be of advantage to us all. It is our past failure to acknowledge that there are problems which has, for so long, been a source of irritation to Salient.
Salient was mentioned often and with some heat. We are not prepared to apologise for views in the matter and we have made it clear that we have no wish to insult persons or stir up bad feeling. This is mainly an intellectual problem and we prefer to treat it as such. An intellectual problem must be tackled without fear of consequences and without any descent into personality. For that reason and additionally because this is the first time there has been "clash of minds" at all it would therefore be intellectual cowardice to be silent in face of opposition and misunderstanding. In spite of the vote at the debate we are convinced that the active student body consider this to be a serious problem. They may disgree with Salient's approach to it but they would welcome Dr.
Salient is therefore going to observe silence on this subject for six issues to enable the Executive on behalf of the students and the staff to consider the matter and take action in the terms Beaglehole's suggestion. If at the end of that time nothing has been done we then promise—no quarter. Fifteen years is too long for this problem to remain only a matter for student concern, student discussion and student initiative.
In the end our failure may be a failure by us all to do our duty in respect to our fellow citizens who pay for our education.
Extrav is due to open on May?. The executive called for scripts for March 15. It appears that the script or scripts to be used still need extensive cutting or amending as I write this, April 3.
In various years that I have been on the wardrobe staff I have tried vainly to see a script before casting in order to start the job early. As sales are held by the drapers at this time, but have always been ended by casting time the Stud. Ass. has lost money year after year. The same loss may not apply to props, but the loss of sleep and study time is similar.
Of the ?? weeks between the handing in of scripts and opening night this year too many have produced no approved script, no backstage work and no cast.
If the selection committee procrastinate their decision it is probably because four people cannot read one copy of a script at once. Who but Exec. could be responsible for providing four copies, quickly?
In several recent years the Extravaganza chestnut has been extracted from the fire into which the Executive has so wantonly tossed it by the Extrav. officials and cast. Notable among the officials have been remarkably few executive members, but instead several graduates whose obligations to the student body were discharged a hundredfold ages ago when they and others like them made up most of the executive members.
Being a stupid, childish, pretentious, completely baffled reporter, I'm naturally hesitant to write to a university student publication. My temerity in doing so, frankly appals me. Yet I have to make some pitiful effort to defend myself against the clever, subtle, objective criticisms with which "H," in last week's issue, attacks my recent review of a poetry reading.
I fail at the outset, I know. "H" was so clever as to misquote me on the one score he takes objection to he was so subtle as to attribute me with a high regard for a third rate poet, and he was so objective as to avoid making any specific criticism of my review.
Seriously, cannot "Salient" achieve a higher standard of criticism in its columns? For instance, in writing of a poetry reading, I offered the criticism that "from an entertainment viewpoint, the home artists would hold their own better (with Spencer, Shakespeare, etc.) if they went in for a few more local and topical touches."
Please note (1) that I was talking about entertainment for a theatre audience, which poetry readings try to achieve, and (2) that "local and topical touches" need not be references to our birds and our streets, but rather to our way of living, a not unimportant item with maybe a few aspects to it, not all of them general aspects, but all of them at least "in touch" with the people.
However, I'm not adamant about this. Our poets may soon be able to match their work even with Milton at poetry readings and beat him at his own game. As stated in the review, there is nothing wrong with their trying, "excepting that an audience is more likely to be interested in things of first-hand knowledge."
Incidentally, "H" (whoever he is) makes a fair job of reviewing the poetry reading, although he could have made better use of the considerable space allowed him.
The portion of the editorial headed "Stocks Low" in the April 3 issue of Salient is a very clear expression of the attitude of too many students at V.U.C.
First of all it is the Staff which ruin the place, then the Council, then the Staff, then the Senate, and now it's the City of Wellington which is not treating us as we should be treated. Why on earth should we keep on trying to pass the buck? The problem is: what is wrong with the students? The fact that we, over two thousand of us, cannot find billets for three hundred visitors is surely a reflection on our indifference, our complete lack of interest in student activities, caused by the flat refusal of the great majority of students to change from being automatic note-takers for about two hours a day, to being active students at an institution which is, theoretically, a university.
(Salient deplores student apathy and has done so for many years. Reader Beaglehole may care to submit an article explaining where apathy comes from. Salient suggests, that there are causes outside the student which also need emphasising.
Might I enquire through your columns exactly when the lighting in room B.3 is going to be improved? Those who have to use this room are starting to wonder why it is necessary for them to sit in the murky gloom shed by two (and only two) dingy globes while most other rooms in the college are bathed in the luxurious glory of fluorescent lighting. Perhaps there is a valid reason for this, or perhaps the powers that be have not noticed this state of affairs in existence over the last year or so?
Or perhaps the person in charge of these things runs an optician's business as a sideline.
Papers read at the Third Congress of the University Catholic Society of New Zealand have been collected and published as "The Catholic Contribution to Culture." Lecturers included J. C. Reld, M.A., senior lecturer in English at Auckland University College, who spoke on "Catholic Writers Today," Michael Bowles "Art and the Catholic," Rev. Fr. B. J. O'Brien, M.A., B.Sc, Dip. Ed., "Catholics and History" and Mr. Myles O'Connor, M.Sc., "Catholics and Science."
are available—price 2/6. from Stewart Johnston or John Cody. They will be available at the Publications Table in the Main Hall.
One of your henchmen has persuaded me to write about your favourite theme of "academic objectivity," and this is the result I should in fact like to know much more clearly than I do at present what your own attitude to the question is and what you would like me and my kind to do about the matter; and in part payment in advance I shall tell you some of the things I am prepared to do and am not prepared to do. You have been trying to provoke me; you can't complain if I try to reciprocate.
It wasn't long after I arrived here last year that I discovered your anti-objectivity campaign in full swing. I confess it annoyed me a little, because what I call "academic objectivity" is something I believe in with some earnestness. You may not mean quite the same as I do by the phraser—few words are more desperately ambiguous than "objective"—but I should like to be sure, because I think that some of your remarks could be construed as a most insidious attack on what I (and, I am sure, most of my colleagues) regard as one of the most vital principles a university has to defend.
It's about the way we teach that you chiefly complain, so I shall confine myself to that. As a teacher of philosophy. I take it as my duty not to inculcate my own beliefs into my students but to help them as best I may to think problems out for themselves and to reach their own conclusions the hard way. Of course I have opinions of my own about various philosophical issues—it would be odd if after thinking about them for several years I didn't, though I am not ashamed to admit that about many of them I haven't by an means made up my mind as yet—but as a teacher of philosophy I don't think it is my job to be a propagandist or a missionary. I believe, for example, that when I am lecturing on the views of any particular philosopher, be he St. Thomas or Karl Marx, my first task is to explain his arguments as sympathetically as I can before going on to criticise them; and in discussing a philosophical problem I think I ought to state both (or all) sides of the case as fairly as I can and leave it to my students to decide which has the better of the argument. (If you say this represents my ideals rather than my practice you may be only too right, for I am but mortal; but ideals are important.) Perverse as it may seem, I have far more intellectual respect for the person who has thought carefully through a problem and come to what I think is a wrong conclusion than for one who agrees with me but whose thinking seems to me slipshod and superficial. And there are even times—to such depths of depravity do I descend—when I think it is my duty as a teacher to argue against the position I am in fact inclined to adopt, when I am talking to someone who does not seem to me to appreciate the difficulties and objections to which it is subject,
All this is (or is one aspect of) what I call "academic objectivity." It is based on an attitude which regards important issues as matters to be discussed (and if possible settled) by patient argument, which involves a readiness to approach problems without having made up one's mind in advance about their solution, to listen open-mindedly to reasonings pro and con, and to change one's opinions when confronted with cogent arguments one had not noticed or appreciated before. Such an attitude seems to me to be the only one whereby I can either keep my own thinking honest or treat my students as adult human begins who ought to be learning to think for themselves and not to be receiving the kind of spoon-feeding which is appropriate only to an elementary stage of education. It is an attitude which has been hardly won and precariously maintained, and it will be a sad day when we in Universities cease to uphold it, for in all conscience you won't find much defence of it anywhere else. It has, however, nothing whatever to do with regarding the issues one is discussing as of no importance; in fact, the more important they are, the more urgent it is to treat them in this "objective" way. (One can, of course, discuss things in colloquial and flippant terms and still take them seriously; that's quite another matter.) Nor, in my own case at least, has it any connection with Mr Benda's view that truth is not the same for everybody: I'm sorry if I introduce dessension into the ranks of the staff here, but it seems to me that if a statement is true, it is just true, not true "for" so and so, whatever that may mean.
All this, of course, raises the question. "Should a lecturer tell?" Should he disclose his opinions, when he has them, to his students? I think a judicious use of this practice can be defended, partly because it brightens a lecture—adds a little comic relief, one might even say; partly because it enables the student to discount the lecturer's bias—for the person who is most destructive of academic objectivity is not the lecturer who announces his views but the one who keeps quiet about them, though they go on influencing what he says, so that no one knows where the discount has to be made; and partly because, if the opinion is not merely stated but also defended, it can (one hopes) serve as a model—for it isn't much use saying to one's students, "think things out for yourselves, devise arguments and criticise other people's ideas" unless one can show that one occasionally indulges in this pastime oneself. Nevertheless, the practice has its dangers, dangers which I confess I suspect you may be inclined to underestimate. For there is the possibility that one may lead students to think that one's personal opinion is the approved opinion, the one they are intended to hold, which they will be rewarded for repeating and penalised for disagreeing with; and when this happens, very serious harm is done indeed. There can't, for example, be any secret in this college about my own religious convictions, yet I am prepared to give high marks for a carefully thought-out defence of atheism and none at all for the most impeccably orthodox statement of atheism unsupported by any arguments; but if students are not prepared to see things like this, then I fear that most of my case for showing my hand from time to time will collapse. There is also the danger that by giving students in advance what they may take to be "the answer," one may lead them to avoid the painful struggling towards an answer which is the process by which they learn how to think better. It is, I suspect, a wholesome realisation of such dangers which may have led some members of staff to suppress their opinions altogether; and as long as we have (as we certainly do have) the type of student whose attitude is "let's find out what the lecturer thinks, and then we'll know what to write in our papers," such lecturers will have a very strong case.
This letter has already reached alarming proportions, but what I should like to know is just how far you dissent from the things I have been saying in it. I should like to know this because some of your remarks have led me to suspect (I hope unjustifiably) that you would like me and my colleagues to go much further than I have said I am prepared to go. Do you, for example, want me to take it as my aim as a University teacher to convert as many students as possible to whatever philosophical or religious views I may happen to hold? I am just not going to do that, for reasons which ought to be clear by now. My job is to teach people to philosophise, not to tell them what conclusions to come to. Again, I have sometimes suspected that you have the idea that there is something meritorious about the mere taking up of a definite stand on an issue, as if not to do so implied a lack of interest in or concern about the subject. But of course the reason why a man is unable to take such a stand may be that he has come to realise the difficulty and complexity of the problem, or that he finds the arguments on both sides unconvincing; and in such a case it is not the refusal to commit himself but the taking of a definite stand which would be
Just to make myself thoroughly unpleasant, can I have a last fling at your reporter who, a few issues back, said that I spent most of a lecture discussing academic freedom? Quite apart from the minor point that it wasn't "most" of the lecture (though I admit that it may have seemed so to him), what I spoke about wasn't academic freedom at all, it was this "academic objectivity." Admittedly there is a connection between the two subjects, because if we don't preserve our academic objectivity we shall be in danger of losing our academic freedom, but they are not the same.—Yours without a trace of ill-will.
P.S.—I have been re-reading your leading article, "Dear Students . . in the last issue of last year, and I have been puzzled to know how belief in the existence of God would affect the teaching of pure mathematics. This is only a minor point (though it isn't entirely unconnected with the main one), but it intrigues me.
It was evident by the number of members present at the fifty-second annual meeting, that the V.U.C. Men's Hockey Club is one of the most virile and active organisations of this college.
The administration is in the hands of patron, G. F. Dixon Esquire; president, H. Lawry; club captain, T. W. Turner; secretary, N. J. Comp-ton; and treasurer, H. P. Taylor. These are backed by a committee consisting of R. G. O'Conner, L. Gat-field and N. Furdson.
However, these elections were not accomplished without undue exertion, for frequent reference had to be made to a mysterious document called a constitution.
A most alarming report was presented by the treasurer who stated that (in spite of the fact that he had juggled his books) he couldn't make the V.U.C.S.A. grant cover expenses. This was due to increased affiliation fees to the Wellington Hockey Association.
The secretary gave a very capable report for
Prospects for this season are good. John Blackwood (C.U.C. and N.Z.U. rep.), Doug. St. John (Otago and N.Z.U. rep.) and Ian Lauren son (back from Wanganui) have promised to play for us. Training has already commenced, and as there is a possibility of a N.Z.U. versus Australia match later on this season everyone is rearing to go.
The selection committee, L. Gat-field, G. Coates and R. O'Conner will have a difficult task in picking teams for this year, so they have decided to hold several trial matches after Easter.
Gym practices are held on Thursday nights at 7 p.m. in the Upper Gym under the eye of instructor W. Landreth. If you're interested and want to play hockey, come along.
The A.G.M. of the Table Tennis Club although suffering from a common Victoria complaint of lack of audience effectively cleared the ground for the coming season's activities. The number playing inter-club table tennis although not as large as last year gives every hope of table tennis continuing as one off the most virile of Victoria's sporting clubs. Because of the enormous amount of organising work needed for the running of inter-club table tennis two club captains were elected, Bryce Jones and Brian Bradbura. The financial position it is, hoped will be improved by a larger grant from the Students' Association. The club has been fortunate in obtaining the services of a seeded Wellington Table Tennis Association player as coach. A one minute silence was observed at the beginning of the meeting in memory of Ian Cowie an enthusiastic member of the club who was accidentally killed during the Christmas vacation.
" All things come to him who waits" says the old proverb and here at last comes a word of praise for that much maligned institution, the Haka-Party. All those people who in the past have criticised these worthy representatives of Weir House for diverse fallings ranging from "Wasting their own time and money, set of drunken rascals, etc., etc." to "breaking up a well-organised show, setting the public against us, etc." must now bow their heads and acknowledge, after the events of tournament weekend, that the Haka-Party has, somewhat tardily, come of age. With the accent on cooperation with tournament officials and careful organisation, the Weir House savages provided a spark of life (and a certain amount of spirit) wherever they appeared.
We are reliably informed (to coin a phrase) that publicity for the boxing and athletics was almost entirely due to the Haka-Party who went the rounds on Wednesday forcing advertising cards on innocent shop-keepers. We treasure the memory of the corsetry shop with cards neatly tucket! into all the models' girdles.
The city council unlike its more en-lightened counterpart in Dunedin who realised that students like the poor are always with us and acted accordingly, issued an edict forbidding any sort of procession and the selling of programme on the streets. (We must not be hard on them, however, perhaps they had traffic problems or something). Despite this wise and provident ruling 14 Haka-Party members sold 600 programmes, a very noble effort. How much this salesmanship was due to the assistance of a mysterious dinosaur (subsequently arrested by members of Wellington's finest) is hard to say. Suffice to say that all the programmes were sold.
The savages with the dinosaur met the boat and train at 7p.m. on Friday morning with a rousing reception. Then on Saturday morning we saw signs of grass skirts at rowing, basketball and tennis and were just calculating the percentage of savages who must have fallen by the wayside when the whole mob suddenly reappeared to the skirl of pipes at Saturday's athletics. The dinosaur was this accompanied by a moa which was hunted round the ground in the best Maori tradition.
Saturday night's boxing saw the Haka-Party slipping—the fake boxing bout received and deserved a lukewarm reception. The boxers were too sober and the crowd in no mood for them.
The shambles to end all shambles however occurred at the swimming on, Monday night when the Savages
To end on a more serious note: It seems at last that the Haka-Party has justified its existence. With a definite
It appears that the defunct Charter Club has once again shown some signs of life—but don't imagine that it is a phoenix arising from the ashes of
English lecturer Dr. Culliford was feeding a Stage III class recently with details of the career of one Richard Rolle, a 14th century English mystic. Like all nice young men of the time he went to university—to Oxford. The centre of learning had moved from Paris to Oxford when a university had been established there, said the doctor. "Oxford then was very much like any present-day university. Except. of course, the staff didn't have Salient to keep them on their toes."
How many people at varsity are interested in providing some sort of social life for the many people from overseas in the city? Are You interested in an organisation that is being formed by a group with city and university connections? Read on if you are interested—you are going to hear a lot about this in any case so you should take this opportunity of learning now what exactly is going on.
Some brief time ago four individuals, amongst them our President, Dave Horsley, became perturbed about the lack of facilities offering in Wellington to people who were without friends or contacts, who had nowhere to go and who had nothing to do in the weekends, and so ended up with very false ideas of Wellington and of New, Zealand hospitality. We who have homes here and know how handy they are in various ways during our tedious and inconvenient weekends can imagine how lonely a person could be in Wellington. Mr. Horsley and his friends envisaged obtaining some club-rooms in the city where the members could drop in during the weekends for a meal, an occasional cup of tea, and to chat with the various others around the place. The basic idea is to provide a place where overseas students, immigrants and visitors, having few friends in Wellington, could meet New Zealanders and be invited into New Zealand homes, and generally make friends with the people of our country.
It is coincidental but certainly providential that there is in Wellington a group separate from that of Mr. Horsley's. This group under the leadership of Mrs. Celia Manson has been operating on a quiet friendly basis for some time, doing good work by entertaining overseas people in their homes and in general doing a great deal to make overseas people feel at ease with N.Z. people and customs. But Mrs. Manson's group has a distinguished history behind it. Mrs. Manson herself has been associated with the Cosmopolitan Club in London—which she helped to found—and with the International Clubs in U.S.A., so when she returned to N.Z. after an absence of over 12 years it seemed natural for her to continue with her good work. The New York International House is an imposing building on Riverside Drive made possible through the generosity of John D. Rockefeller, Jnr. It accommodates about seven hundred people with full board and the range of activity must cater for a very large number of people, both overseas and American. Further information on the American clubs will be to hand soon. It is sufficient to say that a similar type of residential club (there are magnificent buildings in Berkeley, California, and at Chicago) is the ultimate aim of the proposed New Zealand organisation.
Although at present it is far too early to call the movement organised, certain preliminary steps have been taken. Firstly, it was obvious that as the two different groups could not keep on each one dissipating to some extent the resources and energies of the other, that the two must be integrated. Representatives of the two groups met at a meeting recently when an interim committee was formed to study ways and means and to report back to the combined groups. It must be made clear from the start that this movement is not drawn from a restricted section of the community. Naturally all are enthusiasts, and we have representatives from the; various foreign embassies and legations (who are very enthusiastic over the whole idea), there are students, professors, writers, entertainers, businessmen, representatives of religious groups (the Rev. Harry Squires is interested)—in fact the whole community is represented.
Things and beginning to move—this is the beginning of a great and worthy organisation which will most likely be based in its infant stages on the college. If you are interested in any way leave a note in the men's or executive room or letter rack addressed to "International," c/o Salient and we will supply more detailed and comprehensive information.
Published for the Victoria University Students' Association and printed by the Standard Press, 25a Marlon St., Wellington.