FREE OPINIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 98, 28 April 1933, Page 8

FREE OPINIONS.

UNIVERSITY RIGHT. "OF HIGHEST IMPORTANCE." GRADUATES' RESOLUTION. Academic freedom was tlie subject of a discussion by University graduates at a general meeting of the Auckland District Court of Convocation held at the University College last evening. Mr. A. K. Turner presided over the meeting, which was not open to the Press, but according to a report supplied was called to discuss in general terms the control, if any, which should be exercised over expressions of opinion of members of the University staff. Mr. W. 11. Cocker, in introducing the subject, moved "That this Court of Convocation approves and endorses the principle of academic freedom and regards it as a matter of the highest importance that all interference oil the part of any outside political authority or any University governing body with freedom of expression of opinion by members of the University staff, except in so far as such expression of opinion may involve a breach of the law, should be strenuously resisted." "Essential to a University." Mr. Cocker said that intellectual freedom, both of thought and of expression, was essential to the very being of a university. Control of such expression, except in so far as a breach of the law was involved, was equally objectionable, whether exercised by an outside body such as the Government or by the governing body of the university itself. John Stewart Mill, the classical authority on the subject, defended in a masterly style the most absolute freedom of thought and expression, and his words were as true to-day as when written. There had been objections raised to absolute academic freedom. One was that in a university depending partly or wholly on benefactions from the public it was imdesirable to allow expressions of opinion from the stalf which might antagonise possible benefactors. Mr. Cockcr said he did not think that that objection would be upheld by any graduate present. Another modification which had been contemplated was the setting up of a committee to which public utterances of the staff should be submitted. That form of censorship, he felt sure, could not be contemplated locally. Dealing with the suggestion that writings of members of the staff should not have the university status of the writer appended, Mr. Cocker quoted numerous examples of the latitude allowed in this respect to university teachers by English universities, which had rightly Become the envy of the world. Ho strongly contrasted the policy of American universities in this respect. Some Reservation Urged. Dr. H. Ranston moved an amendment reading: "That this Court of Convocation is in favour of all legitimate academic freedom for a university teacher to express his views on important subjects." He emphasised that though a university teacher, when speaking on his own subject, could rightly be regarded as an authority, yet when he was speaking on a subject other than his own specialty he was only a layman. The general public did not realise that, and invested his utterances with a degree of authority which they did not truly pos-

sess. In his opinion the absolute liberty of expression proposed by Mr. Cocker should therefore be qualiiied by inserting the word "legitimate." That would indicate that freedom should be limited to cases where the teacher, through long study, had become fully , qualified to expound the truth, expressing adequately all points of view. Professor W. Anderson supported Dr. Ranston's amendment. Academic freedom, he said, was possible only in a thoroughly academic atmosphere. If by the phrase it was intended that unqualified persons should bo able to make unguarded utterances on- subjects in respect of which they were only laymen, then he agreed that a measure of control was desirable. If a choice had to be made, 'as was always possible, between control by the Government and control by the University . governing body, control by the latter was preferable. This view was supported by Miss M. W. Crookes, who instanced a case some years ago where a university lecturer, lecturing outside his own subject, made statements which were considered by many to be unworthy of tho university tradition. Amendment Rejected. • Mr. Cocker's motion was supported by other speakers, including Mr. A. K. Turner, who said that the conflict between freedom and control was one between principle and expediency, and that where these two conflicted it was the clear duty of a university to ally itself constantly with the cause of principle. Messrs. Noel Gibson and A. B. Thompson also supported Mr. Cocker's motion. After considerable discussion by other speakers, including a reply by the movers of the amendment and motion respectively, Dr. Ranston's amendment was lost, and Mr. Cocker's motion was carried by a substantial majority.

"AS UNDERSTOOD IN BRITAIN"

VICTORIA COUNCIL'S VIEWS,

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The Victoria University College Council last night upheld the principle of academic freedom of discussion, as understood in Great Britain. The subject was introduced by a circular letter from the University Teachers' Association to the Irnlversity Senate and the ! governing bodies within the university. [ The chairman, Mr. P. Levi, submitted ! a resolution from the special committee, | consisting of himself, Mr. Justice Ostler and Professor T. A. Hunter, which has been set up to deal with the matter, j This resolution, without reference to | any recent happening, upheld the principle of free academic discussion by college professors. | After a lengthy discussion the follow--1 ing motion by Mr. Justice Ostler, i seconded by Mr. A. H. Bakewell, was ! carried: — ! "That the council of the Victoria University College strongly upholds the principle of academic freedom of discussion as understood in Great Britain, and as it has. always done in the past."