CANTERBURY COLLEGE.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20234, 12 May 1931, Page 11

CANTERBURY COLLEGE.

, '-- to THE «DITOS O* 'THB PRESS Sir,—We are accustomed to hearing Party politicians speak as much evil ia* they, caa of their opponents without justly adding the.good alsof we are not surprised Vfien back-yard gossips .slander with-biased tongue; but it does not seem compatible with the dignity of T«e Press to print extracts from} what is, practically a private magazine when .those . extracts are i of

such a nature as to leave the general public with an unjustly biased opinion. I refer, Sir, to the article in this morning's Pbess entitled " "Canterbury College: A Student's Criticism." "Canta," the journal quoted, is circulated among the present students at Canterbury College and among a certain numbor of past students. What IS' written in its ■ correspondence columns is meant for . its - particular readers- is meant to stimulate thought and to effect improvement. Thus the correspondence is often very frankly critical; but bluntness in what is, as, I have said before, practically a private publication,, should be regarded as intended for a particular circle of readers, and not meant to be rebroadcast in an influential daily. _ The copies of ''Canta" sent to the editors of the Christchurch newspapers are sent by courtesy, not with the hope of providing sensational "copy." May I make it clear that I am not ip. this place questioning the fact that there.is some truth in the letter quoted —the proper place to answer it is in a letter to the editor of "Canta"—but that I am objecting to a newspaper's "washing someone; else's dirty linen in public," especially when the linenbag was virtually marked "Private." The witter was very sweeping in his statements, biased in his views, and by no means supported by all other thinking students" Even if every statement were fully true, and en-, dorsed by the majority . of students, yet the criticism Hvas frank only because it was made, so to speak, "within the family" where a home truth is of most. use in effecting enlightenment and correction. • The-writer could hardly have been prepared to have ', his criticism, bitter thought it was, made public. I > have been told that an attack is news; but I trust that you will give, equal prominence in your paper to any replies to the letter in question which may appear in the next issue-of "Canta." Thanking you,—Yours/ etc., "C." May 11th,- 1931. TO THB TOITOB OF TBM PBEBB ' Sir. -'•As -a student ' of ' Canterbury "College,. I take very strong exception to the. publication in to-day's Press of extracts from a letter iii the latest copy of "Canta." However true this letter may have been, however justified in its .'criticism-of the University, it

was intended, not for the general public, but for the students. Had the writer wished to expose "the glaring weakness of Canterbury College life" to the citizens of Christchurch, he would no doubt have written to the editor of one of the daily papers. Instead, he wrote to the enlitor Of. the college magazine, whose correspondence column is intended for "suggestions or comments which would be of interest to students." Also, the writer of the letter to "Canta" stated that "practically the only way 'to construct capable, poised ? and "humanised" intellects] that is known to be efficacious is the unforced inter-action of minds on each other at a University." In your article this was misquoted as the ''enforced" inter-action of minds on each other at a University.—Yours, etc., STUDENT. May 11th, 1931. JWe are as surorised to hear that the linen was dirty as that the bag was marked "private." Our copies of "Canta" are marked "For review." If that, in College language, means "for the wastepaper basket," we should have been yarned.— Ed., The Press.]