REASONS GIVEN

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 84, 21 January 1936, Page 9

REASONS GIVEN

SUSPENSION OF EXAMINER. difference in standard of marking. (Per Press Association). AUCKLAND, Jan. 20. The action of the senate of the University of New Zealand m removing the name of an Auckland professor from the list of examiners for the entrance examination, wtncn list was submitted by the Academic Board, was the subject of considerable discussion in committee by the senate, which is now sitting m Auck--1 The matter was made public last year The annual report of ,tne Acamedic Board to the senate contained the following passage: Ihe Board feels that in recommending examiners it must, act with justice and without unfair discrimination, and that it must submit the name of any person who is in other respects eligible unless and until it has in its possession information which would justify it m withholding a recommendatiotn in any given case. The Board, therefore, in view of its responsibility in leeommending examiners, would be glad if the senate would inform the Boaicl of the reasons for its action.” After discussion in committee the senate reported that it had decided that the following statement be sent to the Board :—• “The senate is responsible for the appointment of university examiners. The function of the Academic Board is to recommend for approval the appointment of examiners by the senate. Ip. the opinion of the senate, the Board is entitled to have reasons given to it for any action the senate may take in declining to appoint an examiner recommended by the Board. In the ease under consideration the. senate informed the Board that the particular person would not in future be accepted by it to act as an examiner in French in the entrance examinations. “The facts which caused the senate to take this action,” continued the report, “were the following:— (a) That the examiner, owing to his avowed disapproval of the policy at present followed by the senate in regard to the purposes and to the conduct of the entrance examination in French, did in effect refuse to accept the conditions of examining required from him under that policy; (b) That as a result of this refusal his standard and method of marking differed materially from those of his co-examiners, entailing thereby the possibility of injustice to some candidates; (c) The remarking of his scripts by the chief examiner disclosed the fact that injustice had actually been done in some cases.” The senate also resolved that a sub-committee be set up to decide on some procedure to deal with these types of cases, and report to their respective bodies.