Salient Dispute

"Let Facts be Submitted to a Candid World"

Six days after the appearance of the July 27 issue of "Salient", the Editor received a letter from the President of the Students' Association, informing him of the Principal's decision to ban the sales of that issue in the College pending the next meeting of the Professorial Board. The reason given was the nature of certain remarks contained in, and the general tone of, an article entitled "Our Heritage Reviewed"—an essay towards a review of Beaglehole's history of VUC which had been submitted for publication by a graduate.

The Students' Association Executive met the Principal the same week and discussed the matter. As a result, they decided to send formal apologies to Sir David Smith and Mr. Will Appleton, whose names were mentioned in the offending article. At that stage it was not known by the Editor of "Salient" that either of these persons had taken exception to the comments made on them.

Next day, the present Editor (Denny Garrett) and the Editor nominally responsible for the issue concerned (Pete Jenkins) interviewed the Principal. After some discussion of the nature of the comments made (which he did not consider in any way libellous, but merely in bad taste, and likely to injure the good name of the College), the Principal stated that he was unwilling any longer to bear the sole responsibility for permission to distribute "Salient", and he considered it his duty to ban sales in the College until the Professorial Board met. Interim permission was granted for the following issue (that of August 10).

The Professorial Board met, and informed the Students' Association Executive that it could not grant permission for the distribution of future issues until certain matters had been cleared up. Following the same meeting, Pete Jenkins received a strange communication, informing him that he should appear at a special meeting of the Board to give his reasons "why they should not take disciplinary action against him" for his editorial on Weir House in June, and the publication of "Our Heritage Reviewed". The reversal of a well-known principle of British justice is striking.

The threat of disciplinary action is serious, as serious as the banning of "Salient" itself. The reasons for both, therefore, warrant careful consideration.

Let us look at the two articles which caused the fuss. As to "Belly Rumbles in Weir", the general tenor of its sentiments were echoed by a unanimous resolution of the Students' Association's Annual Meeting. And we feel that much unnecessary noise has been made over "Our Heritage Reviewed". If an article in a college paper cannot make fair comment on the actions and utterances of graduates, then what can it do? (It is to be noted that the Board took no disciplinary action against the perpetrators of a scurrilous leaflet distributed in the College last April, and making false statements regarding the then Secretary of the Association.)

On 6th September, Pete Jenkins attended the special meeting of the Prof. Board. Salient reporters were refused admittance. Pete made a prepared statement to the Board in which he stated his willingness to apologise for anything printed which was proved untrue.

"As a student of the college I should be free to publish criticism of a college activity which concerns me and other students." was his statement on the Weir House editorial. "It is the situation at Weir House that is bringing discredit to the college, not the fact that I described it."

As to "Our Heritage Reviewed," he had had legal advice to the effect that the article was not libellous, but came within the bounds of fair comment. The Exec. had made apologies to Mr. Appleton and Sir D. Smith, and both had intimated their intention of letting the matter rest.

"Clearly the article has a left-wing approach," he said, "but that does not itself make it reprehensible. Students should be free to criticise pulbic figures, and Salient is the only place for them to do so. The article is in keeping with Dr. Beaglehole's book.

"Students should be as free as other people, if not freer to publish their views within the normal restraints of the law.

"Salient is an independent organ of student opinion. The editor is bound by the normal laws of the land, and is responsible to the Students' Association, whose Exec. has expressed its full confidence in the editor."

He was then dismissed, and told he would hear from the Board later.

The Stud. Ass. Exec. discussed the matter with the Board later at the same meeting. The Board suggested that there be provision for a censorship of Salient articles. It was suggested that the editor be given general instructions at the time of his appointment, that he exercise extreme discretion in the publication of articles; and that where he is in doubt about the good taste of any particular article, he submit it to two officers of the Students' Association for their opinion.

The Exec. subsequently considered these recommendations, and resolved to add them to the publication regulations. Apart from the fact that this still leaves the discretion in the hands of the editor, and alters the existing situation but little, the action of the Exec. in leaping to obey the Board's directions is questionable.

The crowning glory came two days later when Pete Jenkins received the following letter from the Registrar in the name of the Board. It requires little comment, except to point out the noticeable absence of any attempt to answer Pete's statement. The letter reads as follows:

"After having heard you at its meeting yesterday, the Board decided that, in publishing the article 'Our Heritage Reviewed' in the issue of 'Salient' on July 27th, 1949, you had been guilty of conduct that tended to bring discredit on the college.

"The Board also decided that you be severely reprimanded and fined five pounds (£5)."