UNIVERSITY FUNDS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 21, 25 January 1929, Page 3

UNIVERSITY FUNDS.

DEPARTMENT ANSWER.

SUBSIDIES NOT WITHDRAWX. NO DESIRE TO INTERFERE. (By Te^jrapl.—Press Association.) WELLK6TOK, Thursday. The Department of Education makes the following official reply to the chancellor of the New Zealand University, Professor J. Macmillan Brown, who in his address at the opening of the annoal meeting of the council of the University, made sn attack on the late Govern men; for what he described as "reniovirsc the fixed annual subsidy, instead of Increasing it," and for "socialising the siowly increasing scholarship fond at the wry moment when funds were needed most." The chancellor, says the Department in a long statement, goes on to speak of "the mutilation of the finances and State interference with the liberty ©: the University" as one of the greatest disasters to the education of the country The University, we are told, will be on the verge of bankruptcy and will be in danger of becoming absorbed by the Education Department. As the result of the bureaucratic curtailment of privilege? and liberties of local bodies the spirit of generosity to educational institution? will be annihilated, and disastrous results will follow. Strong statements such as these, says the Department, would lead the public to think that some very drastic action had been taken by the Government that prceaged impending ruin and disaster to the University, that the very existence of the University and the colleges was at stake, and that the Government was starving University education. What are the facts? Grants Increased Last Year. Last year the Government- found it necessary to provide additional assistance for the professors and to strengthen the staffs of the University colleges, and increased the giants to these institutions by about £10000 a year. . Tlie total income of the University instils* tions from Government sources, including endowment income, but excluding grants for buildings amounting annually to many thousands, is now nearly £200,000. Yet Professor Brown talks of the "niggardly and destructive spirit" of the Department and the Government. While investigations were being made into the needs of the University it was found that the income of the New Zealand University for 1927, including a Government grant of £3540, was £50,144, while the expenditure was £4292 less than that sum, and this expenditure includes nearly £8000 for administration. At the same time the University lias i accumulated funds of over £71,000 (not , j £32.000, as mentioned by the chancel- . lor), and these funds are being rapidly | increased. j The question then arose whether as a policy the Government was justified tn ■ providing grants to an institution that . were not needed, when the needs iu i other directions were clamant. Clearlv no Government should load the present • taxpayer to provide funds to build up 1 large capital sums, so that posterity | would be relieved of its responsibility. . It was therefore decided, not to deprive | the University of its subsidy, as the chancellor states, but to allow Parli*t nient to vote annually the sum that w*« r considered necessary, and as a matter of fact' the reduction in the grant for the • current year is only £961. Whether 1 this is so drastic a cut as to warrant tbe ! attack above referred to, let the publt* ! decide. The Department has no desire to interfere with the University, so long as it will assume reasonable and effective control of its work. The history of Uni- , versity education during the past few years will show that the Department's policy has been to provide niore and more facilities for University education, with- [ ont interfering with the functions of tfce bodies controlling our colleges. Certainly ; there has been no ground for the alarmist statement that the chancellor has iirt ! lished.