Over 350 students attended a Special General Meeting of the V.U.W. Students' Association last week called by the AntiRacialist Committee to condemn the awarding of an Honorary Degree to Sir Richard Wild.

The key motion, the second on the order paper, was lost by a large margin.

David Williams, who was originally to move the motion but was not a member of the Students' Association, quoted Sir Richard as saying that he was "confident that the rule of law was being upheld in South Africa".

"This is a notably tolerant statement," he said.

"It is not good enough."

Mr. Williams defined "condone" to include "overlooking".

"Sir Richard overlooked a number of facets of the South African situation," he said.

"If one has to be polite to apartheid, one should not accept an invitation in the first place."

Seconding the motion, George Fyson said: "Sir Richard Wild gave a general impression that it was not as bad in South Africa as people claimed," he said.

This he said, was sufficient grounds for the motion.

The tone of the next few speakers was sharply critical of the motion.

III-judged

"This is one of the most illjudged, unfortunate motions ever 10 be put to the Association," Mr. Wallace said.

"Sir Richard Wild made a very carefully worded statement which contains an undercurrent of criticism of apartheid."

Mr. Wallace said a phrase had been taken out of context," in a tragically or stupidly misguided way."

One of the Anti-Racialist Committee, Owen Gager, said: "He is the Chief Justice and if there is any sense in awarding an L.I.D. it is because he knows something about justice.

"If Sir Richard wishes to correct the impression he has made, he could make one extra statement."

Mr. Gager said Sir Richard was asked by the Sunday Times, but declined refusing to "comment on anything controversial.'

Mr. Gager gave the example of one South African court where an African, if guilty, was fined and sent away the same day, but any pleading not guilty were held in custody for at least one week.

"Is this how the rule of law is being upheld in South Africa?" he asked.

Opposing the motion, John McGrath said that Sir Richard was "outstandingly" well-qualified to be awarded an honorary degree.

Successful

He was the second graduate from this university to be made Chief Justice, he said.

Sir Richard was to the forefront of law reform.

He said Sir Richard was chairman of a Government Committee on absolute liability in motor accidents.

"Sir Richard gave the sole dissenting paper when he said the test of how much Compensation should be decided on the basis of how badly the person was injured, rather than the present basis of who was at fault," he said.

"This is a much more humane attitude."

The next speaker, Mr. Keating, said the motion showed," immaturity or uncivilised disrespect."

"It is a vicious personal attack on a highly respected man in the community," he said.

"The Chief Justice made a non-committal statement which in no way relates to previous speeches where he has vigorously supported individual rights."

Mr. Keating quoted from a speech Sir Richard had made last year illustrating his point.

Heughan Rennie, student representative on the Honorary Degrees Committee, said that he had to accept the same basis as other members of the committee, in that he was not to discuss, publicly, the deliberations of the committee.

"Against the statements made in the Evening Post weighs thirty years of creditable endeavour," Mr. Rennie said.

"Practically every other action in Sir Richard Wild's career negates the interpretation Mr. Williams has put on his comments."

The President of the Students Association, Gerard Curry, said "an equivocal statement is all that has been put forward to support the motion."

Mr. Curry said the motion should be lost "In view of the slender amount of evidence."

One speaker later, the motion was put, and lost by a large margin.