THE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS DEFENDED.

Evening Star, Issue 6895, 6 May 1886, Page 2

THE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS DEFENDED.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I have been waiting for some other and abler hand to approach this question, but as no one has seen fit to do so I am compelled to take up the cudgels in defence of the students of the Otago University, Both

yourself and the ‘ Daily Times ’ (the latter in a leader thoroughly characteristic, with this exception: that it contains no incorrect Latin quotations) have seen fit to inveigh against us for what you are pleased to term our disgraceful conduct at the inaugural lecture. Now, while not imagining for a single instant that either you or he were ever young, much less students, it does seem strange to me that you saw in the proceedings on Monday night anything to justify your unstinted blame, I at once admit that the students present did not consider themselves bound to sit in the hall in the character of receptive dummies, and claim for them justification in expressing their approbation or disapprobation both of the speakers and of what was spoken. The professors themselves (more especially Professor Macgregor) have on more than one occasion, in conversation with myself, alluded to this as a right possessed by students which they do well to exercise. This, however, sir, it seems to me, is but a trifle compared to the charge brought against us in so many words by the editor of the ‘Times.’ “The students,” he said, “ were determined that the new lecturer should be made to practically experience the truth of Mr Fronde’s remarks in ‘ Oceana ’ about our young generation.” This is a charge, sir, which is utterly baseless, and as malicious as the writer’s remarks usually are on the subject of colonial youth. If any resolution had been come to among us (and I may say here, sir, that I am proud to call myself an Otago University student) it was rather that the new man should be given every chance; and I challenge denial when I say that for the first ten or fifteen minutes he was listened to with eager attention. What was the use of it? They could not hear a single connected sentence, and the disturbance complained of only arose when they found it was utterly impossible to obtain either instruction or amusement from the lecturer. If the lecture, as the writer of the article says, is for the benefit primarily of the students, then do you wonder at their being dissatisfied when they could not hear, as I have said, a single connected sentence ? Ido not wish to defend the action of the students in so far as the musical instruments (save the mark !) and pea-shooters are concerned ; but even here I am informed, on excellent authority, that they had a good example set them by the belauded undergraduates of such respectable universities as those of Oxford and Cambridge. But I do say this, sir, that if their action is worthy of censure, what are we to say of the conduct of Mr R. L. Stanford, 8.A., LL.B., who, though formerly a clergyman of the Church of England, and therefore presumedly a gentleman, dared to address a company of ladies and gentlemen (excluding students for the nonce if you will) with his hands in bis pockets and with “swelling port”? Do you think the students were wrong to “ guy ” him, and that their doing so should be considered as the “ culminating point of their disgraceful conduct ? ” Ido not, sir, but then I am an Undergraduate. Dunedin, May 6.