Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol.12., No. 11. 29th September 1949

Association Protests at £5 Fine

Association Protests at £5 Fine

The third Special General Meeting this year saw a two-thirds majority—74-34—in support of a strong protest against the Professorial Board's action in fining the ex-editor of "Salient." The resolution which was passed is printed, on this page.

The meeting showed no real opposition to a protest, and the whole thing settled down to an academic discussion in fairly reasonable tones, of the strength of the protest. On this, opinion at first seemed rather divided; later it became clear that the meeting wanted to make it strong.

Printing troubles prevented "Salient" from having the planned issue out to see that everyone knew what it was all about; Mr. Evison, in moving the motion, explained this and then went ahead to make up for the deficit. He outlined the facts of the case (which were fully set out in the last issue of this paper) at some length.

"The question is not," Mr. Evison said, "whether the Board has the right to impose the fine or not. Legally, there is no doubt that under the Act and the regulations, the Board can fine, suspend or send down any student who is guilty of bringing discredit on the college." The question is: was the fine unreasonably or unjustly imposed?

De Gustibus . . .

"Salient", he said, is an "Organ of Student Opinion", and it should be free to publish student opinion. He had received an "Important Message" and intended to give it the consideration which a message from such an important person demanded. In this, it was pointed out that the Executive had already protested, and had said that the article was at the most "in bad taste". Of course, as he emphasised, questions of taste were always debatable—always a matter of opinion. Moreover, the Executive was prepared to pay the fine if all else failed. But should we lie down and submit to this? A precedent of this kind was, dangerous.

"I have been trying for years," he said, "to draft a motion which would please everyone." (Prolonged applause.) And this one, he felt, should just about do the trick.

He went on to [unclear: criticise] the argument in the "important message": "Salient" was using the "Corporate name" of the College and must be so responsible. In fact, "Salient" didn't pretend to represent the opinion of the College, but only to give an opportunity for individual students to say what they thought. This argument used against Cappicade or Extrav. would have led to sorry opposition years ago. As for the "standards of decency", there was, no question of it being indecent; and if it was another doubt on the taste of the article, then he repeated that the taste was very much a matter of opinion.

Damper or Gag?

From what he knew, the opinion on the Board had been far from unanimous on the fine; if the Board had been in doubt, then we might have stronger grounds-for questioning their decision. This motion was, framed to take action as well as make a protest, "At the most a reprimand would have done, if the article was in bad taste. He could not understand the Board—the men who had fought the Von Zedlitz case—having taken such an action. To every student, it meant a threat; to any editor of "Salient", a demand for "reluctance to stick his neck out". In spite of what had been said in the "Message" the Issue was one of free speech—whether students had the right to say what they wanted to, within the restraints of the law.

In this case, one student only had been victimised; the Exec., though the publishers of the paper, had been left alone. Obviously, he said, "Salient" was not the work of just one person. It was a chance for every student to express his opinions.

Devalued?

After Mr. Piper, the seconder, had reserved his right to speak later. Mr. Heath moved an amendment which deleted everything practically except the first words. It supported Mr. Jenkins in his appeal: it thought the penalty might have been severe while not "necessarily agreeing with the article" and it didn't as Mr. Heath remarked a little apologetically, "give the same amount for your money" as the original motion.

"It's a matter of putting up with it," he said. "In any decent college, a rag like this wouldn't even be allowed to be printed." We didn't budget for a K.C., he apologised, and the question of legal assistance which Mr. Evison had raised might be difficult. We are living under an autocratic regime, and we have just got to make the best of it, was the arpnment. "Go ahead and pass your motions," he dirged, "the Prof. Board will get a belly laugh out of it."

Deflated

He was seconded by Mr. Pottinger,

"I think ..." (more prolonged applause) "that the motion was cloudy, tangled; it had no coherence; it had, by admission extravagant phrases; it had no intellectual honesty in patches. The article had too many dirty digs; it was guilty of intellectual snobbery, whereas the amendment, now, would smooth out all these patches in the motion.

And the amendment? Asked Mr. Cohen: "Does this not deliberately contravene the spirit of the original [unclear: motion]. He suggested—without getting the chairmans support—the amendment be ruled out of order.

Mr. Goddard wasn't in favour of lying down for the sake of doing so. The amendment wouldn't smooth things down—it would rub, no, steamroller, out the whole effect of it.

Mr. Held was opposed to it—the motion and the article, we mean—and doubted Mr. Evison's imputation that the Board had prejudged the case; he asserted that he, as well as Mr. Pottinger, found intellectual dishonesty in the motion. He wasn't as flamboyant as Mr. H. Connor in his approach; a whirlwind opening question which he rapidly answered himself was followed by another question on court costs, and a suggestion that an appeal to the Council would be moving into the lion's mouth. We should forget about everything and let it lapse.

Mr. [unclear: Lisslenko] suggested that Mr. Connor was devaluing the pound; this wasn't just a token fine, and in any case, a fine of 1/- would have been far too much. The protest should be as forceful as possible: it was still a question of freedom of expression.

Mr. McDonald thought that the amendment was just a red herring and the real problem was whether we could afford to allow such a precedent. Any student could be "fined, suspended or sent down" at any time for what the Board might consider bad taste.

... and rising costs

No support for the legal fine came from an authority, Mr. McIntyre. The costs would be outrageous, he thought, and the chances of winning non-existent. And Mr. Steele also questioned whether the case was one of free speech—good taste rather, he thought. The Prof. Board were well educated men" and their decision should therefore be upheld.

"This clause which allows the punishment of any student for 'bringing disgrace on the college' is too vague," said Mrs. Garrett. It is a dangerous loophole which can be interpreted far too widely. A quite flimsy pretext could be used to Justify the punishment of a student under this all-inclusive clause. She suggested that this matter could well be more clearly defined so that any student could at least know just what the regulations did require.

The Clear Case

The beat, and the clearest, statement of the evening came from the person who was best qualified to He made it clear from the beginning that he was in support of the motion. His speech was quiet and forceful throughout; he was not interrupted; apeak on the subject—Mr. Jenkins, he was applauded when he finished.

This is not a high school, he said. Maybe at the Tech. a paper can be banned and almost publicly burned; but this is not the Tech. Mature people come here willingly, and acquiesce to restrictions on their freedom to do so. But when they arrive, they expect to find what has been regarded as not a privilege but a right—the exercise of one's mind on controversial matters. They do not expect to be held up to public distaste because the views they hold may not be those of the majority. They expect to be—as he had emphasised to the Board in his meeting with them—us free, if not freer, than anyone to publish their views within the restraints of the law.

On the Board, there were some whom he could only describe as vindictive. He objected to the statement in the "Message" on his admission that the article might be in bad taste. He had referred the article back to the author because he thought that the that the author might wish to make alterations. When this was not so, be published it and he stood by his original view that the article came within the bounds of fair comment. Dr. Beaglehole, in his book, had taken up a very fair attitude to "Salient" and to the expression of views by students.

Should an editor have to dig in his pocket before he publishes to see if he could afford to comment? Be noted a facet of college history in passing: during the war, the exercise of freedom of speech was curtailed so much that the debating club was not even allowed, as 1940, to debate whether the war was an [unclear: imperialist] ramp", and the Prinpal [unclear: had suggested] the [unclear: substitution] of the [unclear: on the "communication of sport" (Interjection: "Indoor or outdoor?")]

He periterated his view that this article? was within the bounds of fair comment, and that it was in the spirit of the tradition of necessary inquiry. The motion was an effective product the amendment was going back on the spirit which had been established by past issues of "Salient" and by past students of the college.

"Flamboyant, Emotional"

No, said Mr. Hamme, "Salient" has said what it liked on conscription and he upheld its right to do so. But this was "scurrilous", it was in bad taste; it was poor journalism. And he hoped that in future we would see better stuff. The motion was "a Flamboyant, emotional attack" though we ourselves were not being attacked. Legal action would be out of the question. The fine was, of course, excessive, though we had no good grounds to attack the Board on in a conflict. "A reasonable amendment', he termed it, and it was moved that the amendment be put.

Clinching It

But this was one of those rare occasions when that didn't get through, and the discussion continued on the motion. Clearly, there were many objections to authorising legal action, and it had been severely criticised. Mr. Evison could not discuss his motion since the amendment was under discussion, but he could, and did, move an amendment to the amendment deleting every word after "That" and inserting the original motion without the mention of legal aid. The chairman stopped, looked and wondered at this: but it was a perfectly correct amendment. He (Mr. Evison) started the discussion on the amended amendment by stating strongly that the amended form suggested by Mr. Heath was not forceful enough. Students should be allowed to print; this was a question of free expression, and the matter needed underlining. This was not done by the amendment What power is the Board to have over the ex pression of the student? Agals, be suggested that sample restrition was provided the law, sad that no further gage by the Board were neccsary or justifed.

The matter could obviously be reconsidered by the Association if the appeals to the Board and the Council failed; Mr. Jenkins would have to have an appeal in by September 22 for the Council.

The motion of closure was moved by Mr. Heath and it took Mr. O'Brien in the chair some tone to instruct the meeting what it was voting on; be took very great care to prevent anyone voting on the wrong thing; the closure motion was carried; the amendment was carried, then became the first amended form (do you follow? Again, the amendment was put to become the motion, and by 100 votes to 7 the closure was placed on discussion of this.

And breathlessly in the landslide of hands shooting up and down, scrutineers moving like shuttles, people standing ready for the final rush down the stairs, the motion was put and carried 78 to 34.

It was always clear that a protest was strongly supported; many obviously had reservations about committing themselves to the expense of legal action—paying the fine in the but resort might perhaps have been preferred, as being cheaper. Clearly, too, the affair was seen as an unnecessary restriction on the right of students to express their opinions. We shall therefore continue to regard it as our duty to publish everything sent in—as we always have (so long as it is readable)—and give every student a chance to speak within the bounds of the law.