—Ed.

Sir,—Few people object to a fair criticism, but Whui's misleading report of our meeting on the "Foreign Policy of the U.S.S.R." (appearing in the last Salient) cannot in our opinion be considered fair, for the following reasons: In the first place, it concentrated on' the first part of Mr. Miller's address, omitting all reference to foreign policy, and in so doing threw the address out of its true perspective. In the second place, the report violates Salient's aim of being "The Organ of Student Opinion" in that it suppressed all arguments from the floor with which those responsible for the report happened to disagree.

Signed by the Committee of the I.R.C.

Sir,—As a member of the I.R.C. I would like to protest against "Whui's" self-styled "partisan" report appearing recently in Salient.

He begins by calling our speakers pseudo-rationalists. I think the term could be better applied to "Whui" himself. His whole report is a muck-heap of meaningless inferences and unsupported statements. With theatrical gestures he throws his second-hand material right and left—second-hand because he was present only at the conclusion of the address.

When he had exhausted his ill-gotten material he turned to Miss Crompton, devoting to her space out of all proportion to her contribution to the meeting. There he apparently approves of her insinuations with regard to Mr. Miller's sources, and one is left to assume that Lenin, Stalin and Pravda are reactionary sources of information.

Finally, to cap all, his dormant sense of justice allows him to sup press the speaker's authoritative and logical reply to Miss Crompton.—I am, etc.,

B.N.D.

Dear Sir,—I was astounded to read the "one-eyed" report under the nom-de-plume of Whul. The only decent thing about it is the headed apology of Whui for being a little partisan. I would like to hear Whui's definition of "little," and I am sure that all present at the meeting would agree that the word "little" should be replaced by the word "completely."

It would appear that the writer has obtained his information second-hand, and fairly damaged at that. In view of the fact that one of the speakers at the meeting was a member of Salient staff, I cannot understand such a report appearing in your [unclear: pagttr]. Whui should have been at the meeting and heard the address and given what he heard, not what he was told by some apparently irresponsible newsgiver.

In closing, may I say that Whui used the wrong quotation from Extravaganza. It should have been "Even here among the dead, we can't escape the raging red."—Yours, etc.,

Hooey.

Dear Sir,—I have to thank you for the opportunity of seeing Hooey's letter. Very suitably signed, I think.

Evidently Hooey doesn't read the dally papers: if he did, he would know what being partisan in the press really is. They are rather more subtle about it than myself. I want to say right away that my report was as biased to the left as Mr. Miller's address was to the right. I considered that he was incorrect, misinformed, and misled in many matters, and I said so. The report was strong, yes, but the reason for that is simple: Mr. Miller is gaining the reputation of an authority on the foreign policy of the U.S.S.R., and it is a dangerous thing that this should happen when he is so bitterly opposed to that policy, and that Government.

And, lest Hooey be tempted to reply: "Oh, but he isn't opposed to the Soviet Government," let me quote part of a question by a member of the audience, who began: "In view of the speaker's apparent bitter hatred of the Soviet Union . . ."; and Mr. Miller's reply began: "I don't hate the people of the Soviet Union . . .," implying, as there was no qualification later, that he did hate the Government of the Soviet Union. Then how can he pose as an exponent of Soviet policy, and also claim to remain unbiassed?

As for the cheap sneer in Hooey's second paragraph, may. I say that the writer was at the meeting, he did hear the address, and did give a report on what was heard, namely, anti-Soviet propaganda. And I must say that Mr. Hooey is rather illogical in calling Mr. Miller an "apparently irresponsible newsgiver"—which, as I took my "news" from the speaker's lips, is the only possible construction of his remark. I am glad, too, that Hooey, in his closing sen tence, realises, that he is dead. And. if we are to go on quoting Extrav. at each other, then let me close with:

"—Who have you been reading?"

"—Oh, Eugene Lyons, Jan Valtin, Leon Trotsky.... All very reliable—they're our sort, you know."

—Whui.

Things to Come:

Thursday, July 13—

• Photography, the Art of Seeing. Mr. M. A. Johnson. 8 p.m. in A2. Bach Recital: Marie Vanderwart. Cello; Dorothy Davies, Piano. C6. 8 p.m.

Monday, July 17—

• Iolanthe. Act II. C6.
• Boxing Club Annual Meeting, 8 p.m. in the Gym.

Saturday, July 22—

• Rediscovering Community Living.—Discussion, led by Mr. Wadman, at Peter Mackenzie's, Leslie Road. Wadestown.