UNIVERSITY SITE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 51, 29 February 1916, Page 4

UNIVERSITY SITE.

In an interview which we publish today Sir Robert Stout, Chancellor of the University of New Zealand, expresses lumself strongly in favour of the Metropolitan Ground as the site for jthe University, and his remarks should be studied by all interested in the question. Sir Robert Stout cannot understand why there has been so much opposition to this cite. The opposition is of two kinds, that of thoee who believe that rb would be better to have the University in larger grounds, further from the city, and thoee who think that the Metropolitan Ground should be reserved for the public The second ground of opposition is feeble, because Auckland is already well supplied with parks, and university education is a publiij purpose, and by devoting the ground to the University it -will be opened to the public; whereas at it is a dose preserve, surrounded by a galvanised iron fence, and is of no special benefit to anyone. The first objection is answered by the argument, which Sir J Robert Stout elaborates, that a central I site is necessary for a popular university. This is the core of the controversy, that the University is for the use of hundreds of students who go there only in the late afternoons or evenings, and that'in their interests it is necessary for it to be in a central position. This policy is adopted by the new universities in Great Britain, which are placed the ejties., JThe ground is" the • only "suitftble in' such a central position.

It is discreditable to Auckland that this important question should be left unsettled for co long. In Mr. Seddon's time a grant was given for the purchase of the Choral Hajl for University purposes, with the understanding that the adjoining grounds should be rased for the came purpose. Every Minister of Education, from Mr. hiidon to the present day, has come to the conclusion that the Metropolitan Ground site is the ,ne.w_ ,huH,4ings ~urgenslv .requires. Two Auckland business men, deputed to go into the question, came to the same decision. The, University .Council and Professorial Board are practically unanimous on the question. Yet a small but persistent opposition has been able to exercise such power that nothing has been done. The public is, of course, largely to blame, for if university education were valued as it should be, the question would have been settled long ago.