THE R.S.A. AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24334, 26 June 1940, Page 9

THE R.S.A. AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—Where on earth did “For Freedom” get the idea that the Returned Soldiers’ Association or anyone else had suggested that freedom of thought should be suppressed in our University? No one has suggested that that should be done. Where did respondent signing himself “ 9/452 ” get the idea that anyone was looking for a scapegoat? No one has suggested to the members of the University Council that it should do so. What has been suggested to the University Council is that there are good grounds for thinking that there is a problem within the institution, the neglect of which by the council will leave its members under grave public suspicion that they have not carried out an obvious duty. It is more or . less generally recognised that University teachers are sheltered from most of life’s storms by a benevolent,. Alma Mater, are free to think with ' a complete detachment from reality or responsibility. But it is surely incumbent on a University Council in times of peace to take steps to ensure that these irresponsible theorisings do not become active subversive propaganda that is foisted, not necessarily in class, on our young intellectuals by the prestige granted to its teachers by the University. Surely in times of stress, like the present, when the insidious and dangerous nature of the influence of the Fifth Column and its dupes 1 is been so amply demonstrated, the University Council should adopt at least some such measures as have been put into practice by Melbourne University in order to help to ensure the safety of the realm and the future welfare of New Zealand. All the council has so fa. been told, it would appear, is that if it will only do what seems to be an obvious duty—namely, to inquire into the matter — some outsiders are ready tr give them every assistance in their power. What has so far been suggested is that a mere pious denial by the council is not enough, and, indeed, is not justified. The request that outsiders should act as prosecutors before the council, which seems to have prejudged the issue, does not meet the situation.—l am. etc., J’accuse. TO THE EDITOR Sir—The attack made by “For Freedom ” on members of the K.S.A. is one of the most contemptible that I have ever read. To talk of these men as “ aged war fiorses with walrus moustaches, who were merely dissipating some of the surplus armchair patriotism in a rather childish way” is an insult to any right-thinking person who remembers that it was these same “ armchair patriots ” who won for us the freedom we now have. Will “ For Freedom ” tell us what part he took in the last war or is taking now to preserve the freedom so dearly bought in 1914-18? Evidently all he is fit for is to be an “armchair” critic, while thousands of brave men go to fight for his freedom as did the members of the R.S.A. whom he now insults. If your correspondent has any shame in his make-up, which is doubtful, he will hang his' head and never raise it again in the face of men who proved that they were heroes and not cowards. What sort of University would we have now if the Huns had conquered these “ war horses with walrus moustaches” in the last war? The rest of the tirade by “ For Freedom ” is so full of venom and abuse that I treat it with the contempt due to one of his mentality. If he is a product of the University, he reflects no credit on it, but, if, on the other hand, as can be expected, he is an “ illiterate,” then we can only pity him for “ dissipating ” his spite against those who saved his hide in the Great War. His whole letter proves that he is not one of “ the more intelligent section of the community.” Shame on him—l am, etc.. Honour the Brave.