VICTORIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DEBATES

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 54, 26 November 1921, Page 3

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DEBATES

Sir,—ln tho recent controversy regarding tho Victoriiw-University College debates, statements of tho students’ side of the case have been 'conspicuously absent. This has proved immaterial, as the inherent reasonableness of the policy of the student societies in their intercourse with outside organisations has been sufficient to refute the extravagant charges levelled against the societies concerned. However, the remarks of "Loyalty First" in this morning’s columns of your paper cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. “Loyalty First" assures us on the authority of his son that . a number of the students have shown indignation at the class of men who at times have been permitted to take part in some of the debates, and also the subject matter debated." Now, what are the facte? The Debating Society has for several years past held an annual debate with tho Social Democratic Party. At the last annual meeting a suggestion was unanimously approved, that a number of the, other debates should be opened to one visiting speaker on each side, in accordance with a custom introduced into the Canterbury College Society direct from the Cambridge Union. The meeting referred to was the best attended meeting in the recent history of the society, and no expression of disapproval was voiced there nor has the society since had cause to regret this forward move. If the alleged indignation exists it has failed to manifest itself either within the society or in another direction in which it could reasonably have been expected to find expression, namely at the recent inquiry. That inquiry .took place ten days after the final debate of the session. Ono of the matters specifically mentioned) in the scope of the inquiry had reference to these "visitors’ debates." Ample opportunity was given to anv student who desired to express, an opinion on any of the issues raised to attend and be heard. A number of those who were particularly interested in the retention of existing student privileges at .an informal meeting decided that some'of their number should state their attitude at the inquiry. But where wene the students who showed indignation over the matter? Not one of them came forward to give any indication that the propriety of holding these debates was even questioned by the students, much less that it was a- cause of indignation.” Tn view of these _ facts "Lovalty First" is rather belated in his apnenl to the Minister to "move early and uproot the whole evil.’ Seven weeks n.c*o he could have sent "Loyalty First, Junr." along to the inquiry to bear testimony to the widespread indignation, and have rendered material assistance towards the desired end. The students who were responsible for the holdin" of these debates had nothing to bide, nnd by a full statement of their position removed any doubt as to the wisdom of leaving the society free as in the past to manage its own affairs. That "loyalty First should have missed so, signal an opportunity of making specific his vague references to "an undermining and disloyal element” is an interesting commentary upon his bona fides in this matter. * ~ It is surprising that "Loyalty First, claiming to base his statements on inside information, should make such an error as to refer to the attendance at the debates of "Communist lenders. 1 can assure “Loyalty First" . that no "Communist leader" has ever been asked to participate in any of the society s etcbills, though some of them have probably attended in accordance with the general invitation to the public to be present on certain occasions. If the knowledge of their mere attendance causes parents to "express abhorrence I am afraid the parents concerned will experience increasing difficulty in protecting their sons against the influence of ideas which they are bound sooner or later to encounter. It is surely a poor tribute to our educational system to be continually harping upon the danger ot allowing certain influences to assail university students. If there are any at the university so seriously lacking in mental balance and judgment that it.is necessary to protect them from this influence and from that, then it is our general educational system that is at fault in passing on as fit to enter a university those who are incapable of meeting and of responding to or rejecting the thou- ■ =and influences which should confront the genuine student. Speaking with some knowledge of the average New Zealand student I can say that he requires no such careful protection, but is sane enough to face all kinds of ideas and beliefs and to judge for himself. In conclusion, allow me to express regret that "Loyalty First” has seen fit to attack M institution in which he is obviously interested, without disclosing his identity. Though he is doubtless desirous of removing the suspicion which he imagines attaches to himself from tho fact of having a son in attendance at the suspected institution—hence his adoption of the reassuring nom-de-pjume —li* should yet realise that references, to "a snake in the grass" are hardly in order from one who under the cover of an anonymous title launches a belated attack admittedly based on hearsay.—l am, etc.. W. A. SHEAT.