Campus Contraceptives

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31770, 29 August 1968, Page 10

Campus Contraceptives

Sir, —Discussion on sexual matters is notoriously biased and doctrinaire. The present controversy is no exception. Arguments against the establishment of a contraceptive machine on the university campus are based on two premises. First, students must be sexual maniacs for demanding such a service, and second, such a move would inevitably lead to an increase of immorality. It is widely and perhaps wildly assumed that the presence of such a machine will automatically, of itself, boost promiscuity among students to the detriment of their search for “higher” things. It fs remarkable that in our so-called scientific age these arguments are taken to be self-evident, there being no apparent need to produce valid evidence to justify them. What we need are intelligent answers based on reliable research, since thought without knowledge is often dangerous, and. more often, a waste of time.— Yours, etc., MACANN. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —As a member of the Canterbury University Students* Association I wish to join those students who have already objected and express my disapproval of the recent proposal by the Students’ Association executive to install contraceptive-vending machines on the university campus. Quite apart from the moral questions involved, the executive has shown considerable irresponsibility in acting at a time when neither the Vice-Chancellor nor the Registrar nor the majority of students are present to voice their opinion. If the incident at Edinburgh University earlier this year is any indication of the controversy which would be aroused, then the executive, by acting in such a clandestine fashion, is guilty of the same crime of which they accused the Government during the Omega affair.—Yours, etc., WALTER T. RAYMOND. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —On reading the letters and complaints on campus contraceptives it is interesting to note the frequent occurrence of such phrases as, “Good morals are best,” “higher than average standard of behaviour,” “low moral standards,” “do the girls have no standards?” Another puzzling one was “fallen by the wayside.” What do these people actually mean by such phrases? Do they really know themselves what they mean? Can they justify such statements? These phrases are merely opinions of what they think are right and wrong.— Yours, etc., L. J. BARBER. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —As a student at Canterbury University I support the move of the association executive to install a contra-ceptive-vending machine. 1 know several people who would have been saved much grief and heartache by such a measure. Make no mistake, these are not selfish, promiscuous pleasure - seekers but ordinary people genuinely in love and for whom marriage is difficult through economic or other reasons.

These are the people, in my belief, that will benefit from the decision.—-Yours, etc., NIALL A FINN. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —I write as one undecided on the contraceptives issue. There seem to be two major arguments. (1) The illegitimacy rate among students—and anyone else who wishes to use the machine—may go down. (2) Sex may be cheapened. So I say give the machine a trial. Al) may be well. If not, remove it. Another point: As a student badly uninformed about the pill, I am led to believe that the success of this type of contraceptive is 95 per cent.—Yours, etc., DAVID PALMER. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —Sex is a pleasurable occupation that gives much happiness to many people. Unfortunately, participation is often marred by the possibility that unwanted pregnancy occurs. Any action of any organisation which attempts to remove this unfortunate side effect of such a beautiful experience is indeed towards a praiseworthy cause. Those anxiety makers who desire to forbid such contentment, who will not allow fear to be dispelled, are in fact carrying out their own psychological need to see punished those who are courageous enough to stand up to the barrage of the righteous, and take happiness whilst they may.—Yours, etc., B. MANN. August 28, 1968. v

Sir, —I am a student, and I do not support the setting-up of contraceptive machines on the campus, but not for socalled moral reasons. I am not against what is vulgarly called sex before marriage, provided that the couple involved love one another. University students are probably less promiscuous than most other sections of young people, as they tend to be more serious abo”t all their relationships, and more careful about their sexual relationships. I know of far more illegitimate births among the working girls of my acquaintance than among my much larger university acquaintance. For these reasons, I think contraceptive machines are largely superfluous on the university campus, where the illegitimacy problem is negligible. The association’s money would be better spent on improving cafeteria facilities, to name but one example.— Yours, etc., J.H. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —The average student of the university, of whom I speak as one, has a high enough moral standard and as good a conscience to tell him not to play up in the first instance. Self-indulgence and escapism are not a general trend; a minority only, who seem to preoccupy critics, come under this classification. Second, let those who know best, those who have to undergo the frustration and worry of premarital birth control, decide the issue. Contempt, yes; but only for those who condemn without considering that students do have some integrity.—Yours, etc., R.M.T. August 28, 1968.

Sir, Personal freedom, especially in sexual expression, has been subjected to moral sanction —a source of fears, inhibitions, and guilt, often with conscience wholly dependent upor them. This is a rigid values system which lacks the maturity to be also a rational system. The present student population has generally been exposed to a more liberal social environment. Student conscience is less motivated by inhibition and guilt. Recent television appearances and open discussion support this contention. Students consider their actions openly and in a rational way. Perhaps they make their mistakes—only time will tell —rather than blindly follow existing standards without question. They are attempting to develop social values which they can believe in. It is not necessary to give them a completely free run—only that we consider first that our disapproval of them may be due to faults in ourselves.—Yours, etc-, R.M.B. August 28, 1968.

Sir, Congratulations to those who have written deploring the move to install contraceptive - vending machines at Canterbury University. One question: is the executive speaking for the ma-

jority or a minority?—Yours, etc., ADULT. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —I am amazed at the reluctance of the authorities to permit contraceptive-vend-ing machines at the university. Where our intellectual leaders go today the rest will follow tomorrow. Perhaps we will yet see these machines in supermarkets, places of entertainment, secondary schools, even one in every home. We old-timers wish, perhaps regretfully, they had been available—and used—a couple of generations ago. Then perhaps we would not be bedevilled by too many protest marches, student demonstrations, and students. —Yours, etc., THE OLD MONK. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —Student minds have sunk to an all-time low, and wanting contraceptive machines in the universities could be a step towards a mating session between lectures. These types who obviously are interested in only one thing would be far better off employed elsewhere, and let the genuine students get on with their studies. Universities are no place for intercourse.—Yours, etc., KEEP CAMPUS CLEAN. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —When I consider some of the recent gimmicks of some of the students and observe the unkempt scruffiness of yet others of them, I reflect sadly that the contraceptive issue is a few years too late.—Yours, etc., GANGA DIN. August 28. 1968.

Sir, —“Taxpayer” is wrong in saying “the students reflect our sordid sexual morals.” Mr M. Lyons, of the Child Welfare Division, states that fewer than 6 per cent of illegitimate mothers brought to the notice of his division had university entrance. The students’ executive would agree that the ideal is to have no pregnancies from unmarried students, but facing the fact that there are a few irresponsible ones when it comes to sexual morals, they seek, first, to conserve the taxpayers’ money for the purpose for which it was intended—to enable each female student to finish her course, and incidentally to develop a healthy personality in doing so—and to highlight the fact that the responsibility for an untimely pregnancy rests with the male. It should be noted that the motion was only approved in principle, and had not gone before the administration or the students. Also, one executive member abstained from voting and one dissented.— Yours, etc., THINK BEFORE SPEAKING. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —I think it is utterly disgusting that those students—our future professional people who are supposed to be very highly regarded—admit freely their lack of selfcontrol, moral fibre, and, most of all, self-respect. Their position is just the same as any other young people today; you would think they had it on their own! Others seem to have enough will power to overcome temptation. What is wrong with our students? The installation of these machines may indeed reduce the illegitimacy rate a fraction but chances are that it would also raise the rate of promiscuity because of the added temptation and convenience. Just because a portion of the students have lowered themselves to this contemptible state, does this

mean we have to let them drag others down to that low level also?—Yours, etc., W. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —The problem is not vending machines and students but illegitimacy and New Zealand. Apparently the major objective of the Students’ Association is to stimulate discussion. For this they are to be congratulated. It demonstrates that at least one major group in society has an active social conscience, even if some may find their shock-tactics approach rather unpalatable.— Yours, etc., CONGRATULATIONS. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —Somehow I thought that the Canterbury University students had attained some sort of mature outlook on the problems of the world when they demonstrated against Omega, but how can

any so-called intelligent group, who are supposed to have high ideals, support the proposed installation of the contraceptive - vending machine on the campus? Can they be so naive as to think that they are solving the illegitimacy problem by this method? They are only encouraging promiscuity. Had Mr Simpson and his colleagues bothered to find out the student body opinion, they would have realised that the majority of students do not support their arguments. Mr Simpson and his colleagues should wake up to the fact that, powerful and all as they think they are, they are not solving anything by the installation of a contraceptivevending machine.—Yours, etc.,

IRATE STUDENT. August 28, 1968.

Sir, —According to Mr A. J. Simpson some unmarried women students at university had had to break university studies because of pregnancy. Also he argues that most girls would not take a regular course of oral contraceptives unless they were involved in a serious relationship. Please enlighten Mr Simpson and all unmarried university students that the simplest, the cheapest, and the only oral contraceptive 100 per cent safe, is the little two-lettered word, “No.” —Yours, etc., OBSERVER. ■August 27, 1968.

[This correspondence is now closed. Editor, “The Press.” ]