POEM IN SCHOOL JOURNAL.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20905, 12 July 1933, Page 8

POEM IN SCHOOL JOURNAL.

STRONG PROTESTS BY EDUCATIONISTS. TEACHING DECLARED TO BE PERNICIOUS. Churning that the teaching embodied in a poem in the June issue of part 111. of the "New Zealand School Journal*' for Standards V. and VI. is subversive of the principles of social order and that it savours of Communism, certain educationists in the Dominion have taken strong exception to its publication. Accoi'ding to private advice received in Christchurch yesterday, protests have already been made from Auckland to the Minister for Education, to the Department of Education, and the editor of the journal. The poem to which exception has been taken is entitled "The New Loyalty," being written by Thomas Curtis Clark for the "Christian Century" and reprinted in. the school journal, appearing, incidentally, in the Empire Day number. In a letter to the Minister, Mr Noel Gibson, headmaster of the Dilworth School, Auckland, which conducts primary and secondary departments, complains that the first two lines of the poem in particular contain the teaching of the Third International, and that the poem "exemplifies the jelly-backed claptrap which is responsible for some of our 'isms' and much of our trouble," exception being taken to the publication of such matter in a State journal. Those associated with education in Christchurch to whom the poem was referred were also of opinion that there might be a serious danger in allowing its teaching to be disseminated in schools without the corrective of interpretation. The text of the poem is as follows: —

THE NEW LOYALTY.

Let us no more be true to boasted race and clan, But to our highest dream, the brotherhood of man. Shall Babel walls of greed and selfishness divide? Shall not the love of friends illumine the patriot's pride'.' For moated arsenals let shrines or art atone; V;herc armies met in blood, let garden plots be sown. Let royal hunting grounds be parcelled out anew That little children's feet may know the grass and dew. No more shall Mammon play with pawns of toiling men, No more shall blood be spilled that Greed may count its gain. Let patience be our power and sympathy our court, With love our only law ~nd iaith our only fort. New thoughts, new hopes, new dreams, new starry worlds to scan, As time proclaims the dawn, the brotherhood of man. "I think there is much in the whole poem calling for criticism on various grounds, literary and otherwise, but the first two lines I regard in so serious a light that I feel justified in drawing your attention to them," states Mr Gibson in his letter to the Minister. "Whatever the intended teaching of the poem may be, I find it impossible to put any but the following construction on the first two lines, namely:— "We must be false to our family and to our nation and cherish some vague idea of the brotherhood of man. It is hardly necessary for me to argue that, without a sense of loyalty to family and race, there could be no real espousal of the conception of universal brotherhood. To me the teaching of these lines savours much of the Third International. I believe them to be extremely subversive of the root principles of social order. The po-:m exemplifies the jelly-backed claptrap which is responsible for some of our 'isms' and much of our trouble, and that it should be put forth by the State seems to me an extremely serious matter indeed, the more pointed perhaps as the page on which the poem appears is headed 'Empire Day Number.' "Extreme bigotry of nationalism is not desirable, but to avoid it, it is far from necessary to urge people to be untrue to their own race and clan, although there be some boasting in connexion with them. If children are not to be taught to be true to their own kith and kin, they will never be loyal to anything. If my criticism of the poem is false or unjust, I shall be glad to learn of wiser men and shall be the first to regret troubling you about the matter, but I find that my impression is the same as that created in the minds of several other adults to whom I have shown the poem." Educationists' Opinions.

In a telephone conversation with "The Press" from Auckland last evening, Mr Gibson said that his interpretation of the poem had since been confirmed by two university pressors, the headmasters of four of the leading Auckland secondary schools, and headmasters of primary schools.

"I do not think that the poem in its entirety was a wise one to place in the School Journal, particularly with the mind of the public in the mood in which it is," remarked Mr L. F. de Berry, headmaster of the West Christchurch intermediate school. "The journal must be like Caesar's wife—above suspicion. There can be a distinct and real danger in the interpretation by a teacher of 'a poem of this description, and for that reason I think it would have been wise if it had not appeared. I am quite certsdn that the fear expressed in some quarters concerning the poem may be definitely well founded.". Mr de Berry said the point should be emphasised that the main difficulty was one of interpretation by the teacher to the class reading the poem. He said he thought that the poem had been inserted in the School Journal by the Department of Education in accordance with the policy of fostering a wider internationalism and a faith in the work of the League of Nations. Whether a poem was subversive of patriotic principles depended in many instances on the way it was treated by the teachers. He believed that the poem in dispute was intended to be treated as a means of promulgating the broad issues behind the work of the league, although it was questionable whether it was the right type of poem for the purpo»3e>

Teachers' Responsibilities. The difficulty of interpreting the poem correctly was fully admitted. Unless this were done by a teacher with full understanding, the effect of the poem on the mind of a child might be very considerable, and hardly what would be desired. However, teachers were trained to sense difficulties that might be embodied in the interpretation of such a poem, and he did not think that as a whole in New Zealand they had betrayed their trust in this respect, no matter what views they might hold themselves. It was acknowledged that just such difficulties as were apparent in this poem were always present in the schools at the present day, and particularly so in the high schools. It was very difficult to avoid them. Part 111. of the journal was meant for use in the lower forms of high schools or the higher forms of primary schools. Children today were being confronted with numerous opinions and advanced thoughts, especially in the high schools, and particularly if they read anything of modern literature. It was in dealing with this problem that the balance of the teacher was of paramount importance.

One of the functions of the teacher should be to develop the critical attitude of mind in the child so that he would not "take for gospel" everything which he read in print, but rather treat it on its merits. Teaching depended entirely on the personality of the teacher, and it was admitted that there could be a real danger in the promulgation of literature in the schools which might be wrongly interpreted by iho children because the teacher did not have the capacity to handle "übjects as they should be treated.

Battle Ground for Ideas. Mr C. R. N. Mackie, president of the School Committees' Association, said that while he agreed with the principle of the "brotherhood of man" and also with some of the sentiments expressed in the poem, he objected strongly to the schools being made the battle ground for political or religious ideas. He would regret any teaching that would turn the schools into places where controversies on these subjects were conducted. It was true that 'the primary school syllabus distinctly said that teachers were to inculcate the spirit of the brotherhood of man in the children and to uphold the ideals for which the League of Nations stood. Teachers, however, were instructed to eschew any teaching savouring of extreme nationalism. He did not think it was right to preach, as the poem did, that we -hnuld not be true "to boasted race," although it had to be admitted that it did not appear quite clear what exact meaning the author intended to convey with those words. In any event it was unwise to publish anything for school use which was in danger of misinterpretation.